H 


/v 


xClTv  f.f  .p,’;  ! 

MO\f'  7  1923 


*2  V*  ,f? 


V  /  /?  0  /  n  j  i  {  C  ;•  •.  \> 

0 1 S,  a  t  a  t 


-V 

'•  -iN, 

%  >•  v  V 


Division  35 4-4-5 

Section  *  ■  !  *  : 


/ 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/birthofbibleOOheys 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


HEYSHAMS 
BIBLE  CHART 


CANON  CLOSED 
A.D. 

TALMUDISTS 

300 

MASSORETES 

XPT\'y 

•  : 

1000 

1500 


EZRA  THE  BIBLE 

MBje|4448-C.ga 


THEODORE  HEYSHAM 
COPYRIGHT  1923 


1*>  BKS+APOC. 
LXX  277-132  B.C. 

ORDER  BKS. 

ORIGEN 
HEXAPLA 


1800 


1900 


USHER  1701 


*2-13  CENTURY 
OT.  —  N.T. 

320  A.D. 

QUOTED  N.T.  ORAL  TRADITION 

GRKS.  IT  A I  A  WRITTEN  RECORDS 
_ 2  i  kit  niiDKicn  ana-aia 


E 

NO  APOC. 

MSS.  DEST. 

OLDEST  MS.916 

PRINTED  1488 

B 

LUTHER 

JEWS  REJECT 


I 

VULGATE 

LI 


NX  BURNED  303-312 
405  A  D 


|  JEROME  14Yrs.0.T.  CANON 

CLOSED 

397 AJX 
NO  APOC. 


CAEDMON  700 


fAPOCRYPHA 


APOCRYPHA 

TEXT  VARIES 

ORK.CHURCH 

X1MENES 

POWGUJT  . 

fTURKS  1453  . 

TYNDALE  1525—1536  A 

ff— 11  1  y  V 

DOUAV  1609 


JESUS  CHRIST 

POLYCARP  69-156 
PAPIAS  0b.-163 
0LDE$TMS.4thCENT. 

TRADITIONALISTS 

VATICAN  4-1475 


AWYCLIF1382  y  |nO  HEB.-GRK 

- mlERASMUSlSB 


I  BKS.  BURNED 

MARTYRS 


ien 


3000  MSS. 


AMERICAN 

M 

T0THC6Y  C€B6IAC 

My C  T  H  piO  NOCe  1  TIM. III.  16 


ENGLISH  *  REVISED  1881-1885 

-  iSdzn 


BEZAE  2-6-1546 
MT.LK.JN.MK. 

EPHRAEM  5-16-1841 

TEXTUAL1STS 

SINA1TIC4-1859 


STANDARD  REVISED  ~  1901 

PI  USX  1907 1 K  i  5  BIBLES  i  HI  B  I 

oocAercuyTAicMH  T£..e<|>OBoyN 
6K0AMB£IC06INZHTel  TOT  A  fV  MKXVI.&8 


. . 


THE  BIRTH  OF 
THE  BIBLE 


A  NEW  PATHWAY 
TO  THE  BETTER  UNDERSTANDING 

OF  THE  BIBLE 


Ul 


y 


;  V  I 


Rev.  THEODORE  HEYSHAM,  PH.  D. 


PHILADELPHIA 

THE  JUDSON  PRESS 


BOSTON 
KANSAS  CITY 


CHICAGO 

SEATTLE 


LOS  ANGELES 
TORONTO 


Copyright,  19*3,  by 
THEODORE  HEYSHAM 

Published  April,  1933 


Printed  in  U.  S.  A, 


TO 

THAT  GREAT  BODY  OF  LAY  PEOPLE 
WHO  WOULD  KNOW  THE  TRUTH 
ABOUT  GOD  AND  THE  FACTS  ABOUT 
THE  BIBLE 

TO 

THAT  GENEROUS-HEARTED  GROUP 
WHO  IN  DOING  HONOR  TO  ME,  HAVE 
DONE  SERVICE  TO  TRUTH  IN  THE 
PUBLICATION  OF  THIS  VOLUME 


TESTIMONIAL 


We,  the  friends  of  Rev .  Theodore  Heysham, 
Ph.  D.,  irrespective  of  denomination,  as  a 
testimonial  to  the  twenty-five  years  of  min¬ 
istry  in  the  town  in  which  he  was  raised, 
unite  in  the  publication  of  his  new  book 
“  The  Birth  of  the  Bible  " 


TESTIMONIAL 


jrfaleuCjf  » 

Oo^jO. 

yriM&LiA,#'' 


INTRODUCTION 


Wide-spread  darkness  overshadows  the  Church 
in  relation  to  the  Book.  The  great  mass  of  the 
people  are  in  almost  total  ignorance  as  to  the  facts 
about  the  Bible.  No  seminary,  college,  or  univer¬ 
sity  as  yet  has  equipped  men  to  bridge  the  gulf 
between  the  people  and  the  facts  about  the  Book. 

The  result  of  this  failure  is  seen  in  the  chaos 
and  confusion  and  conflict  among  the  churches 
and  within  the  churches.  Men  who  do  not  under¬ 
stand  the  nature  of  the  Bible  can  never  under¬ 
stand  one  another.  The  deep  need  of  the  hour  is 
a  right  understanding  of  the  Book.  We  must 
understand  the  facts  about  the  Bible  if  we  are 
ever  to  come  to  unity  in  spirit  and  in  service. 

When  my  eyes  were  opened  to  this  sad  condi¬ 
tion  in  the  churches,  I  was  much  disturbed.  I 
had  taken  it  for  granted  that  as  I  had  a  general 
knowledge  of  some  of  the  facts  about  the  Bible 
the  people  had  the  same.  How  they  attained  to 


INTRODUCTION 


this  knowledge  I  never  thought  to  inquire.  Re¬ 
flection  led  me  to  realize  that  in  all  the  years 
of  my  ministry,  I  had  never  succeeded  in  put¬ 
ting  these  facts  across  to  the  people,  nor  had 
I  heard  or  known  of  any  one  else  being  able 
to  do  so. 

A  tour  of  the  religious  book  stores  of  a  great 
city  revealed  the  fact  that  not  one  of  them  either 
possessed  or  knew  of  any  method  to  bridge  the 
chasm.  Impelled  by  a  sense  of  the  deep  need,  I 
set  about  to  discover  a  solution.  The  Bible  Chart 
described  in  this  book  is  the  result. 

The  Chart  was  designed  to  be  to  the  under¬ 
standing  of  the  Bible  what  the  skeleton  or  bony 
framework  of  a  man  is  to  the  understanding 
of  the  human  body.  It  coordinated  all  the  parts 
of  the  Bible’s  historic  development  into  one  har¬ 
monious  and  vital  whole.  The  eye  could  see  what 
it  was  very  difficult  to  explain  and  next  to  impos¬ 
sible  to  piece  together  by  purely  intellectual  proc¬ 
esses.  Only  a  specialist  could  make  such  coor¬ 
dinations  without  the  aid  of  a  diagram. 

With  the  Chart  enlarged  first  to  seven  feet  and 
then  to  thirteen  feet  square,  and  painted  in  colors 


INTRODUCTION 


on  canvas,  I  set  out  to  make  the  effort  to  give  the 
people  the  facts  about  the  Book.  The  reception 
accorded  was  most  gratifying.  With  the  Chart 
before  them  the  people  listened  eagerly  to  the 
story  of  “  The  Birth  of  the  Bible.”  Children  in 
the  Bible  schools  from  twelve  years  of  age  and 
upward  were  deeply  interested.  The  initial  ex¬ 
periment  was  a  success.  A  further  venture  was 
made.  Summer  Assemblies,  Sunday  School  Con¬ 
ventions,  and  Ministerial  Conferences  were  given 
the  opportunity  to  consider  the  Chart  and  its  mes¬ 
sage.  All  bore  testimony  to  its  worth.  I  now 
present  the  Chart  and  its  description  as  a  con¬ 
tribution  in  the  field  of  religious  pedagogy.  It 
has  proved  itself  to  be  one  method  of  getting  the 
facts  about  the  Bible  across  to  the  people,  the 
first  successful  method. 

Many  surprises  have  come  to  me  as  the  result 
of  this  effort  to  master  a  difficulty. 

First,  Among  Christian  leaders  I  found  an 
almost  universal  conviction  that  the  task  of  get¬ 
ting  the  facts  about  the  Bible  to  the  people  was 
an  impractical  one.  When  I  mentioned  to  the 
president  of  one  theological  seminary  my  purpose 


INTRODUCTION 


to  make  the  effort,  he  said:  “You  can’t  do  it. 
The  subject  is  too  heavy.”  The  president  of 
another  theological  seminary  confessed  that  no 
adequate  instruction  along  this  line  was  given 
to  the  students  in  the  institution  he  represented. 
Many  ministers  declared  that  they  had  made 
efforts  to  get  the  facts  about  the  Bible  to  the 
people  but  had  failed  in  every  attempt;  not  a 
single  minister  would  venture  to  assert  that  he 
had  succeeded. 

Secondly,  The  people  were  amazed  and  full  of 
wonderment  at  the  revelation  of  the  facts.  An 
illustration  will  best  explain.  It  is  of  a  man  who 
for  thirty  years  had  been  superintendent  of  a 
large  Bible  school  and  an  active  Christian  worker 
for  more  than  a  half  century.  This  man,  on 
hearing  the  Chart  explained,  asked  in  wonder¬ 
ment,  “  Are  these  things  all  true?  ”  When  it  is 
remembered  that  this  man  was  a  college  graduate, 
a  graduate  of  a  scientific  school,  a  leading  man  in 
his  profession,  trustee  of  a  university,  one  of  the 
most  intelligent  and  representative  laymen  of  his 
denomination,  it  is  not  much  wonder  that  sur¬ 
prise  came  to  me.  I  had  actually  been  the  first 


INTRODUCTION 


to  tell  this  man  the  facts  about  the  Bible,  I  was 
to  him  the  first  missionary  of  a  New  Evangelism. 
This  is  simply  a  sample  of  experiences  which  I 
had  in  presenting  the  facts  to  the  churches.  The 
story  was  new  to  them  all. 

Thirdly,  The  deep  interest  manifest  in  the 
Chart  and  the  intense  desire  on  the  part  of  the 
people  to  know  the  facts  about  the  Bible  were 
truly  a  revelation.  By  question  and  by  appeal, 
the  people  revealed  their  interest  and  their  needs. 
At  first,  they  requested  that  I  have  the  Chart  put 
in  a  form  suitable  for  their  use.  This  was  done. 
The  Chart  was  printed  on  a  leaflet  and  given  to 
the  people.  The  possession  of  the  Chart,  how¬ 
ever,  did  not  meet  the  need.  With  the  Chart 
before  them,  the  people  were  little  better  off 
than  before.  They  requested,  therefore,  that 
they  be  given  a  description  of  the  Chart  to  go 
with  it. 

In  a  moment  of  enthusiasm  this  second  request 
on  the  part  of  the  people  was  granted.  A  descrip¬ 
tion  was  promised.  Had  I  realized  at  the  time 
the  difficulties  to  be  encountered  and  the  sacri¬ 
fices  to  be  made  in  assuming  this  responsibility,  I 


INTRODUCTION 


fear  I  should  have  hesitated.  Now  that  the  task 
is  completed,  I  am  grateful  for  the  privilege  of 
having  been  permitted  to  open  a  new  pathway  of 
illumination  for  the  better  understanding  of  that 
great  Book  of  books,  the  Bible. 

Two  more  requests  were  to  follow.  Dr.  J. 
Milnor  Wilbur,  President  of  The  Baptist  In¬ 
stitute  for  Christian  Workers,  Philadelphia,  de¬ 
sired  that  the  Chart  be  put  in  the  form  of  a  lan¬ 
tern-slide.  Effort  to  fulfil  this  request  led  to  a 
realization  of  the  necessity  of  revising  and  sim¬ 
plifying  the  Chart.  This  has  been  accomplished. 
The  Revised  Chart  appears  in  this  book  and  may 
be  obtained  as  a  lantern-slide. 

To  secure  simplicity  and  make  the  Chart  more 
easily  understood,  Prof.  Milton  G.  Evans,  D.  D., 
LL.  D.,  President  of  Crozer  Theological  Semi¬ 
nary,  suggested  that  parts  of  the  Chart  be  printed 
separately.  This  suggestion  has  been  carried  out 
so  far  as  practicable  in  the  sectional  charts 
printed  herein.  Doctor  Evans  also  kindly  read 
my  manuscript  and  offered  many  valuable  correc¬ 
tions  and  criticisms. 

In  sending  forth  a  description  of  the  Chart  in 


INTRODUCTION 


book  form,  I  can  only  trust  that  it  may  in  some 
measure  answer  the  prayer  of  those  for  whom 
it  has  been  prepared.  Nothing,  I  know,  can  take 
the  place  of  the  living  voice.  In  “  The  Birth  of 
the  Bible,”  I  have  done  my  best  to  provide  a 
substitute.  The  Chart  is  designed  to  keep  before 
the  mind  a  picture  of  the  way  in  which  the  Bible 
grew  through  the  centuries.  The  narration  of  the 
facts  will  clothe  the  pictured  form  with  life.  In 
reading,  keep  the  Chart  before  the  eye.  Both 
God  and  the  Book  will  grow  more  wonderful  as 
the  character  of  the  Book  is  revealed. 

Thanks  are  due  to  many  for  suggestions, 
kindly  assistance,  and  encouragement  in  the  de¬ 
velopment  of  this  purpose  to  make  the  Bible  a 
new  Book  for  the  people,  a  Book  of  inspiration 
and  of  the  revelation  of  life. 

A  peculiar  sense  of  appreciation  and  gratitude 
is  felt  toward  those  friends  who,  as  a  testimony  to 
my  ministry  in  the  community  in  which  I  was 
raised,  have  generously  opened  the  way  for  the 
publication  of  this  volume.  In  performing  this 
gracious  service  they  in  no  wise  assume  any  re¬ 
sponsibility  for  its  content. 


INTRODUCTION 


The  responsibility  for  that  which  is  written  is 
mine.  I  have  sought  diligently  to  be  true  to  fact 
and  to  remember  at  all  times  that  in  being  true 
to  fact  I  should  be  true  to  myself,  my  brother, 
the  Book  we  all  revere,  and  the  Father  we  all  love. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  PAGE 

I.  What  Is  the  Bible? .  i 

♦ 

II.  How  Do  We  Know  the  Bible  Is 

the  Word  of  God? .  6 

III.  Historic  Succession  of  Facts .  8 

IV.  Where,  When,  and  How  Was  the 

Bible  Born? .  13 

V.  How  Came  the  Greek  Civilization 
to  Split  the  Old  Testament 
Into  Two  Streams? .  23 

VI.  Dominance  of  the  Latin  Civiliza¬ 
tion  Over  the  Streams  of 
Divine  Experience .  36 

VII.  How  the  English  Civilization 
Turned  All  Streams  of  Divine 
Experience  Into  a  New  Chan¬ 
nel  .  51 

VIII.  The  English  Triumvirate  Broken  77 

IX.  Necessity  of  Modern  Revisions.  . .  82 

B 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  PAGE 

X.  Romance  and  Reality  in  Manu¬ 
scripts  . 89 

XI.  The  Pathway  of  Progress .  102 

XII.  The  Test  of  Fire .  108 

XIII.  The  Salvation  of  the  Scriptures.  114 


XIV.  The  Perssstent  Problem  of  the 


Bible . 130 

XV.  The  Spiritual  Fact .  150 

Index  .  165 


CHARTS 


PAGE 

Full  Bible  Chart,  in  colors . Frontispiece 

Sectional  Chart,  Showing  the  Development 
of  the  Old  Testament .  25 

Sectional  Chart,  Showing  the  Union  of  the 
Old  Testament  and  the  New  Testament  in 


the  Latin  Vulgate .  37 

Full  Bible  Chart,  in  colors,  opposite .  76 


Sectional  Chart,  Showing  the  Development  of 
the  New  Testament . 


95 


I 


WHAT  IS  THE  BIBLE? 

The  Bible  is  the  Book  of  books.  Like  all 
things  associated  with  life  the  Bible  had  a  begin¬ 
ning.  Wherein  does  the  birth  of  the  Bible  differ 
from  the  birth  of  a  babe?  Was  not  the  Bible 
born,  born  on  earth  just  as  a  child  is  born  ?  Time, 
place,  circumstance,  do  these  not  enter  into  the 
birth  of  all  things,  yea,  and  mystery  too?  Mys¬ 
tery  and  reality,  do  they  not  meet  and  mingle  in 
all  things  associated  with  the  human  order  ?  But 
is  there  any  more  mystery  in  the  birth  of  the  Bible 
than  there  is  in  the  birth  of  a  babe? 

The  mystery  associated  with  the  birth  of  the 
Bible  as  well  as  with  the  birth  of  a  babe  is  the 
mystery  of  life  itself.  Life  in  its  origin  is  sur¬ 
rounded  with  mystery.  Science  still  stands  in 
silence  at  life’s  portal.  No  biologist  has  pene¬ 
trated  the  mystery  of  the  origin  of  life,  nor  has 
any  theologian  resolved  the  mystery  of  the  origin 
of  the  Bible.  Both  science  and  religion  emerge 
from  the  same  gateway  of  mystery.  Beyond  that 
gateway  the  human  has  no  experience.  Neither 
pride  of  pretense  nor  presumption  at  knowledge 

[i] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


can  avail.  There  is  a  place  where  man  must  con¬ 
fess  with  Paul,  “  His  ways  are  past  finding  out.” 

On  this  side  of  the  gateway  of  mystery  are  the 
scriptured  experiences  of  the  race,  the  glorious 
history  of  human  civilization,  achievement,  and 
discovery.  On  this  side  is  the  record  of  facts, 
facts  which  are  sacred  because  scriptured  in  ex¬ 
perience  and  shrouded  in  mystery. 

The  history  of  the  Bible  is  a  part  of  this  great 
record  of  facts.  To  be  true  to  the  facts  about  the 
Bible  is  to  be  true  to  the  Bible  and  to  God.  Scrip¬ 
tured  facts  are  rocks  that  cannot  be  shaken.  A 
house  of  faith  built  on  these  rocks  stands.  A 
house  of  faith  on  which  these  rocks  of  fact  fall 
is  ground  to  powder. 

On  the  rock  of  fact  paganism  was  shattered. 
Paganism  pretended  to  possess  the  secret  of  life’s 
origin.  It  presumed  to  have  penetrated  into  the 
realm  of  mystery  in  religion.  The  problem  for 
the  pagan  priest  centered  in  an  idol,  not  in  a  book. 
To  him  the  idol  was  sacred.  In  his  zeal  to  ac¬ 
count  for  its  origin,  he  disregarded  facts.  The 
worshipers  of  Diana  were  taught  that  the  little 
wooden  image  of  the  goddess  in  the  temple  at 
Ephesus  had  fallen  bodily  from  heaven  and  in 
perfected  form.  In  like  manner,  the  devotees 
of  Minerva  were  led  to  believe  that  the  little  ivory 
image  of  the  goddess  in  the  temple  at  Athens 

[2] 


WHAT  IS  THE  BIBLE? 


had  been  formed  in  heaven  and  passed  down 
to  earth.  Faith  was  built  upon  falsehood. 

Idolatry  thus  preceded  bibliolatry  in  pretense 
at  knowledge  and  presumption  in  explanation. 
Pagan  ideals  had  a  new  birth  in  bibliolatry;  the 
explanation  of  the  origin  of  an  idol  was  used  to 
account  for  the  origin  of  sacred  books.  Moham¬ 
medanism  and  Mormonism  are  classic  illustra¬ 
tions.  This  new  paganism  proclaims  not  a  per¬ 
fect  idol  but  a  perfect  book  fallen  bodily  from 
heaven  and  in  perfected  form.  Between  these 
theories  of  sacred  origins,  between  a  perfect  idol 
fallen  bodily  from  heaven  and  in  perfected  form 
and  a  perfect  book  so  fallen,  there  is  no  choice. 
The  one  is  a  perversion  of  the  religious  ideal  in 
the  realm  of  art;  the  other  is  a  perversion  of  that 
ideal  in  the  domain  of  literature.  Both  are  con¬ 
tradicted  by  facts. 

The  Bible  warns  against  any  kind  of  idolatry 
whether  of  form  or  of  letter.  He  who  would 
venture  to  trespass  into  the  mystery  of  the  origin 
of  the  Bible  should  take  counsel  from  the  priests 
of  paganism  and  avoid  their  errors.  No  sadder 
accusation  could  be  brought  against  those  who 
love  the  Bible  than  to  charge  them  with  being 
pedlers  of  paganism.  For  the  Bible  did  not  come 
to  earth  as  the  idols  of  paganism  were  said  to 
have  come,  nor  did  the  Bible  originate  as  the 

[3] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


books  of  this  new-born  paganism  were  declared 
to  have  originated.  The  Bible  was  not  written  in 
heaven  and  carried  to  earth  by  angels.  No,  the 
Bible  was  born  on  earth  through  the  experiences 
of  men. 

All  efforts  to  express  the  sense  of  mystery  asso¬ 
ciated  with  the  birth  of  the  Bible  are  attended 
with  difficulty.  In  the  past  the  words  used  in 
explanation  have  been  so  cumbrous,  the  language 
so  unfamiliar,  that  the  great  multitude  fled  away 
or  were  bewildered.  Truth  must  ever  be  adapted 
to  the  needs  of  the  living.  Difficult  as  is  the  effort 
to  put  the  truth  about  the  Bible  into  simple  lan¬ 
guage,  it  is  nevertheless  imperative. 

What  is  the  Bible?  As  a  physical  fact,  the 
Bible  is  a  Book  of  books.  As  a  spiritual  fact,  the 
Bible  is  a  record  of  Divine  Experience.  It  bears 
witness  to  a  vital  relationship  between  God  and 
man.  The  word  “  Divine  ”  is  used  because  it  is 
the  most  beautiful  and  tender  word  in  our  lan¬ 
guage  descriptive  of  God.  To  what  heights  are 
we  lifted  when  we  sing, 

Love  divine,  all  love  excelling, 

Joy  of  heaven,  to  earth  come  down. 

The  word  “  Experience  ”  is  used  because  all  that 
is  in  the  Bible  has  come  through  the  human  order. 
There  is  not  a  word  or  a  thought  in  the  Book 


WHAT  IS  THE  BIBLE? 


that  has  not  been  born  in  the  soul  of  a  man. 
Whatever  of  Divinity  there  is  in  the  Bible  is  a 
Divinity  that  has  been  expressed  through  hu¬ 
manity. 

The  Bible  is  the  wrought-out  experiences  of 
human  souls  in  contact  with  the  Divine.  It  is  a 
record  of  Divine  Experience.  The  Bible  is  of 
value  to  the  human  just  in  the  proportion  and 
only  in  the  proportion  that  the  human  can  repro¬ 
duce  the  recorded  experiences  in  terms  of  life. 
Hence  this  quality  of  life  is  eternal  and,  therefore, 
authoritative.  Jesus  “  spake  with  authority  and 
not  as  the  scribes.”  In  the  synagogue  of  Naza¬ 
reth  he  could  say  with  truth,  “  This  day  is  this 
Scripture  fulfilled  in  your  ears.”  To  Jesus,  there¬ 
fore,  the  Bible  was  a  Book  of  Life.  It  should  be 
no  less  to  us. 


II 


HOW  DO  WE  KNOW  THE  BIBLE  IS  THE 

WORD  OF  GOD? 

To  the  question,  “  How  do  we  know  the  Bible 
is  the  word  of  God?”  there  is  a  confusion  of 
answers.  Ask  a  Roman  Catholic,  and  he  has  an 
answer  at  hand.  Ask  a  Protestant,  and  he  has 
no  answer  or  an  uncertain  answer.  The  Roman 
Catholic  says,  “  I  know  the  Bible  is  the  Word  of 
God  because  the  Church  says  so.”  Ask  him  how 
he  knows  the  Church  knows,  and  he  says  the  Pope 
says  so.  Ask  him  how  he  knows  the  Pope  knows, 
and  he  says  the  Bible  says  so.  This  is  what  is 
known  as  reasoning  in  a  circle.  You  start  out  to 
prove  a  thing  and  circle  round  by  making  the 
thing  prove  itself. 

How  fares  the  Protestant?  The  average  Prot¬ 
estant  has  no  answer.  If  an  answer  is  supplied 
him,  it  may  be  either  the  church,  or  the  reason, 
or  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  all  three  combined.  Either 
form  of  the  answer  leaves  the  soul  far  from 
being  satisfied.  Can  we  not  find  some  simpler 
way  of  arriving  at  assurance? 

Duty  demands  the  adventure.  How  do  we 

[6] 


HOW  KNOW  THE  WORD  OF  GOD? 


know  the  sun  shines  or  the  wind  blows  ?  Do  we 
need  to  have  some  one  tap  us  on  the  shoulder 
and  say,  “  The  sun  is  shining,”  “  The  wind  is 
blowing  ”  ?  Can  we  be  assured  of  these  things 
only  on  the  authority  of  some  one  else?  Assur¬ 
edly  not !  We  know  the  sun  shines  and  the  wind 
blows  because  God  made  us  to  respond  to  the  light 
of  the  sun  and  the  touch  of  the  wind.  We  know 
the  Bible  is  the  word  of  God  because  God  made 
us  to  respond  to  truth.  When  the  Bible  says, 
“  God  is  our  refuge  and  strength,”  we  need  no 
external  authority  to  assure  us  of  its  truth.  Only 
that  which  proves  itself  to  be  true  in  human  ex¬ 
perience,  or  which  may  be  so  proved,  can  claim 
any  real  authority  over  man.  The  only  authority 
that  can  be  permanently  binding,  is  the  authority 
of  a  fact. 

“  The  Birth  of  the  Bible  ”  deals  with  facts,  not 
with  theories.  Theories  are  trouble-breeders. 
The  world  is  already  overburdened  with  theories 
about  the  Bible.  The  deep  need  of  the  present  is 
a  knowledge  of  the  facts  in  relation  to  the  Book. 
Only  as  we  know  the  facts  accurately  can  we 
build  our  faith  confidently.  A  faith  built  upon 
the  rock  of  Bible  fact  is  as  secure  as  the  house 
of  which  Jesus  said,  “  It  fell  not.”  That  such  a 
faith  in  the  Bible  may  be  realized  is  the  purpose 
of  this  book. 


[?] 


Ill 


HISTORIC  SUCCESSION  OF  FACTS 

The  first  fact  about  the  Bible  to  be  recognized 
is  that  the  term  “  The  Bible  ”  is  not  the  original 
“  trade-mark  ”  of  the  Book.  The  term  “  The 
Bible  ”  is  of  comparatively  recent  origin.  This 
may  cause  surprise.  The  facts,  however,  are  at 
hand. 

Neither  Jesus  nor  his  apostles  used  the  term. 
Some  time  in  the  second  century  after  Christ, 
certain  writers  began  to  use  the  word  “  Biblia  ” 
to  describe  the  Sacred  Books.  The  use  grew  in 
favor.  By  the  thirteenth  century,  some  men 
forgot  that  Biblia  was  a  neuter  plural,  meaning 
“  The  Books,”  and  treated  it  as  a  feminine  singu¬ 
lar,  “  The  Book.”  What,  therefore,  had  been 
“  The  Books  ”  became  “  The  Book  ”  or  “  The 
Bible.” 

John  Wyclif’s  translation  of  the  Scriptures 
bore  the  title  “  The  Holy  Bible.”  Later  the  word 
“  Holy  ”  yielded  its  descriptive  supremacy  to  the 
definite  article  “  The,”  and  “  The  Holy  Bible  ” 
became  simply  “  The  Bible.”  Thus  custom  com¬ 
pressed  a  collection  of  books  into  a  single  book. 

[8] 


HISTORIC  SUCCESSION  OF  FACTS 


The  modern  world  has  so  approved  of  this  mod¬ 
ern  title  “  The  Bible  ”  that  the  term  is  clothed 
with  a  halo  of  antiquity.  By  the  magic  power  of 
universal  use  this  modern  title  “  The  Bible  ”  has 
been  made  to  appear  ancient. 

In  like  manner  the  terms  Old  Testament  and 
New  Testament  were  not  used  by  Jesus  and  the 
apostles.  The  apostles  probably  never  thought  of 
a  new  body  of  sacred  writings  set  over  against  the 
old.  Not  until  about  A.  D.  170  do  we  find  some  of 
the  Gospels  and  letters  gathered  together  into  a 
unit  and  recognized  as  of  equal  sacredness  with 
the  sacred  writings  of  the  past.  The  list  was  not 
definitely  fixed.  There  was  much  difference  of 
opinion  over  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament 
until  the  end  of  the  fourth  century.  From  that 
time  a  certain  list  of  books  was  generally  accepted. 

Nor  was  the  term  which  was  to  designate  the 
two  collections  of  sacred  writings,  agreed  upon 
at  once.  The  struggle  centered  finally  between 
“  Covenant  ”  and  “  Testament.”  From  the  Coun¬ 
cil  of  Laodicea,  A.  D.  320,  to  the  present,  the 
general  verdict  has  been  in  favor  of  “  Testa¬ 
ment.”  The  one  collection  of  sacred  writings 
was  called  the  Old  Testament ;  the  other,  the  New 
Testament.  Tertullian  is  held  responsible  for 
starting  the  movement  that  led  to  this  end.  This 
lawyer-theologian  spoke  of  the  “  Gospel  ”  as  the 

[9] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


instrument,  i.  e.,  document.  In  translating  the 
Greek  word  dtadrjxrj,  “  covenant/’  by  the  Latin 
word  testamentum,  “  testament,”  he  gave  a  wrong 
meaning  to  the  old  Hebrew  idea  which  expressed 
the  relation  between  God  and  his  people.  A  term 
of  jurisprudence  took  the  place  of  an  ideal  of 
fellowship.  In  course  of  time  the  word  Testa¬ 
ment  was  substituted  for  the  word  instrument, 
and  the  original  idea  was  lost. 

Other  events  marking  changes  in  the  Bible’s 
history  are  as  follows : 

Hebrew  vowel-points  first  introduced,  sixth  to  tenth  cen¬ 
tury  A.  D. 

Chapters  first  introduced  in  Vulgate,  1228,  Stephen  Lang- 
ton. 

Verses  first  introduced  in  Hebrew,  1240,  Hugh  De  St.  Cher. 
Verses  first  introduced  in  Greek  New  Testament,  1551, 
Robert  Stephen. 

Vulgate  first  printed,  1455,  “  Mazarin  Bible.” 

Hebrew  Old  Testament  first  printed,  1488. 

Greek  New  Testament  first  printed,  1516,  Erasmus. 
Luther’s  New  Testament  first  printed,  September,  1522. 
English  New  Testament  first  printed,  1525,  Tyndale. 
Luther’s  Bible  first  printed,  1534. 

English  Bible  complete  first  printed,  1535,  Coverdale. 
Licensed  by  king. 

Chapter  headings  introduced. 

Apocrypha  first  printed  in  English.  Placed  between 
Old  Testament  and  New  Testament. 

Prayer  of  Manasseh  omitted. 

Called  “Treacle  Bible”  from  Jeremiah  8  :  22, 
“treacle”  for  “balm.” 


[IO] 


HISTORIC  SUCCESSION  OF  FACTS 


Matthew’s  Bible  (authorized),  1537.  Prayer  of  Manasseh 
included. 

Great  Bible  (authorized),  1539.  Pages  13*4  in.  by  7j£  in. 
Edition,  1539,  called  Cromwell’s  Bible. 

Edition,  1540,  called  Cranmer’s  Bible.  Title  “  Hagio- 
grapha  ”  substituted  for  “  Apocrypha.” 

Geneva  Bible,  1560. 

Verses  first  introduced  into  English. 

Roman  type  first  used. 

Words  not  in  original  put  in  italics. 

Apocrypha  printed  separately. 

Prayer  of  Manasseh  put  between  2  Chronicles  and 
Ezra. 

Called  “  Breeches  Bible  ”  from  Genesis  3  :  9, 
“  breeches  ”  for  “  aprons.” 

Bishop’s  Bible,  1568. 

Map  of  Palestine  first  introduced. 

Also  called  “Treacle  Bible.” 

Roman  Catholics  closed  Canon,  1545,  Trent. 

Greek  Catholics  closed  Canon,  1672,  Jerusalem. 

First  Roman  Catholic  Bible  in  English,  1582  to  1609, 
Rheims-Douay. 

Bishop  Lloyd’s  Bible,  1701. 

First  use  of  Archbishop  Usher’s  chronological  dates. 
King  James  Bible,  1611. 

“Great  He  Bible,”  “Great  She  Bible,”  1611:  One 
translated  Ruth  3:15“  He,”  the  other  “  She.” 

Editions  from  1611-1629  contained  the  Apocrypha. 
Editions,  1631,  1716.  Two  mistakes: 

(1631)  Omitted  “not”  from  the  Seventh  Command¬ 
ment.  King’s  printers  fined  £300. 

(1716)  Translated  “vineyard”  “vinegar,”  Matthew 
21  :  28,  and  so  called  the  “  Vinegar  Bible.” 

English  Revised  Version,  1881-1885. 

American  Standard  Revised  Version,  1901. 

Westminster  Version  of  Sacred  Scriptures,  1913  (Roman 
Catholic).  (Not  completed.) 

[n] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


A  review  of  these  facts  will  show  how  much 
of  that  which  we  find  associated  with  the  Bible 
is  really  modern.  Time  and  change  of  ideas 
bring  changes  in  the  Book.  Some  of  these  things 
mentioned  are  passing  away  before  our  eyes.  The 
chronological  dates  are  disappearing  from  the 
Bibles  of  our  day.  Paragraphs  are  receiving  an 
emphasis.  Multiplied  helps  are  being  added  in 
the  way  of  references,  concordances,  maps,  out¬ 
lines,  and  various  other  illuminating  matter. 


IV 


WHEN,  WHERE,  AND  HOW  WAS 
THE  BIBLE  BORN? 

The  Bible  may  be  pictured  in  two  ways.  With 
the  Chart  before  us.  we  may  conceive  of  the 
Bible  as  two  great  arms  of  love  reaching  out  to 
gather  the  human  family  into  the  fellowship  of 
the  love  of  God.  The  two  arms  would  be  the  two 
arms  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  stretching  out  from  Ezra  and  Jesus  Christ. 

Then  again,  the  Bible  may  be  conceived  as  a 
great  river  channel  into  which  the  two  streams  of 
Divine  experience  converged  as  they  flowed 
through  the  centuries  carrying  the  inspiration  of 
the  love  of  God  to  a  world  in  need.  We  shall 
use  the  idea  of  a  river  channel  in  our  descriptions 
and  picture  the  two  streams  in  the  Chart  coming 
from  Ezra  and  Tesus  Christ  until  they  meet  in  the 
English  and  American  Revisions. 

Turning  now  to  the  Chart  ( black).1  the  name 
of  Ezra.  444  B.  C..  appears.  This  date.  444  B.  C., 
is  an  important  one  in  Bible  history.  Then  it  was 

1  The  colors — black,  yellow,  purple,  blue,  red — refer  to  portions  of 
the  Chart.  Note  these  carefully. 

[13] 


c 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


that  Ezra,  the  scribe,  gathered  together  the  sacred 
writings  of  the  Hebrews.  All  those  separate 
streams  of  Divine  experience  which  had  been 
forming  during  two  thousand  years  of  history 
and  over  a  thousand  square  miles  of  territory, 
Ezra  united  into  a  single  stream.  For  the  first 
time  in  Hebrew  history,  so  far  as  we  know,  the 
sacred  books  of  Israel  then  in  existence  began  to 
be  collected  in  the  form  in  which  they  have  come 
to  us.  These  comprised  what  is  known  as  the 
Books  of  the  Law.  At  a  later  date  the  Prophets 
were  added  and  at  a  still  later  date  the  Hagio- 
grapha,  or  Holy  Writings. 

Thus  some  time  between  Ezra,  444  B.  C.,  and 
the  coming  of  Christ  the  books  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  were  fixed,  the  Canon  closed,  and  the  He¬ 
brew  Bible  completed.  That  is,  it  was  practically 
closed.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  was  not  officially 
closed  until  the  Council  of  Jamnia,  A.  D.  90. 
And  even  after  that  to  the  Second  Century  after 
Christ  some  books  were  questioned. 

The  term  canon  originally  meant  a  reed  or 
measuring-rod,  hence  a  standard.  Amphilochius 
(A.  D.  330)  was  the  first  to  apply  the  term  to  the 
Scriptures.  Jerome  followed.  Books  found 
worthy  to  be  honored  as  Scripture  were  called 
canonical  and  the  collection  of  such  books,  the 
Canon.  Thus  we  have  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Tes- 


HOW  WAS  THE  BIBLE  BORN? 


tament,  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament,  and 
the  Canon  of  the  Bible. 

Opposite  to  the  name  of  Ezra  on  the  Chart 
stands  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ.  From  him  arose 
the  other  stream  of  Divine  experience  (red).  It 
gathered  in  a  few  years  of  history  and,  with  the 
exception  of  Paul,  over  a  few  square  miles  of 
territory. 

So  far  as  we  know,  Jesus  never  wrote  any¬ 
thing  except  on  one  occasion ;  then  he  wrote  upon 
the  sand,  and  the  writing  was  soon  obliterated. 
Nor  did  Jesus’  disciples  make  record  of  what  he 
said  or  did  as  a  modern  reporter  or  historian 
would  do.  When  Jesus  died,  there  had  been  no 
provision  made  for  the  preservation  of  his  teach¬ 
ings  and  works  in  book  form. 

For  a  period  of  from  twelve  to  twenty  years 
after  the  crucifixion,  what  Jesus  had  said  and 
what  he  had  done  were  passed  down  by  word  of 
mouth.  All  that  future  generations  were  to  know 
of  the  life  of  Jesus,  they  were  to  receive  through 
oral  tradition.  For  many  years  the  fate  of  Jesus 
rested  upon  the  accuracy  of  human  memory  and 
the  integrity  of  human  reports.  Oral  tradition 
for  from  twelve  to  twenty  years  was  to  bridge  the 
gulf  between  Jesus’  life  and  the  zvritten  records 
of  his  life. 

As  the  years  passed,  and  the  disciples  began  to 

[IS] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


grow  older,  fragments  of  the  life  of  Jesus  were 
jotted  down.  Papias  speaks  of  the  “  Logia  of 
Matthew.”  This  was  not  the  Gospel  of  Matthew 
as  we  have  it  today,  but  a  much  briefer  work. 
Next  in  order  came  the  written  records,  the  Gos¬ 
pels  of  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  and  John. 

At  the  beginning  of  his  Gospel,  Luke  gives  a 
good  idea  of  the  situation : 

Forasmuch  as  many  have  taken  in  hand  to  draw  up  a 
narrative  concerning  those  matters  which  have  been  ful¬ 
filled  among  us,  even  as  they  delivered  them  unto  us,  who 
from  the  beginning  were  eye-witnesses  and  ministers  of 
the  word,  it  seemed  good  to  me  also,  having  traced  the 
course  of  all  things  accurately  from  the  first,  to  write 
unto  thee  in  order,  most  excellent  Theophilus,  that  thou 
mightest  know  the  certainty  concerning  the  things  wherein 
thou  wast  instructed  (Luke  1  :  1-4). 

Prior  to  the  writing  of  the  Gospels  came  some 
of  the  letters  of  Paul  and  others.  Thus  after 
oral  tradition  came  the  letters,  as  Paul  shows  in 
2  Thessalonians  2  :  15:  “So  then,  brethren, 
stand  fast,  and  hold  the  traditions  which  ye  were 
taught,  whether  by  word,  or  by  epistle  of  ours.” 
The  order,  therefore,  would  seem  to  be:  Oral 
Tradition,  Letters,  Memoirs,  Gospels. 

When  men  began  to  commit  the  traditions  of 
the  life  of  Jesus  to  writing,  many  took  up  the 
work.  Harnack  has  a  list  of  twenty  such  writings 
of  which  we  have  some  information.  A  great 

[16] 


HOW  WAS  THE  BIBLE  BORN? 


body  of  literature  came  into  existence.  Out  of 
these  writings,  some  time  between  the  death  of 
Christ  and  A.  D.  397,  the  books  we  now  know  as 
the  New  Testament  were  agreed  upon,  the  Canon 
was  closed,  and  the  New  Testament  was  com¬ 
pleted. 

That  is,  the  Canon  was  practically  closed. 
Strictly  speaking,  the  New  Testament  Canon  was 
never  closed  by  a  council  representing  the  whole 
Church.  The  Third  Council  of  Carthage,  A.  D. 
397,  was  only  a  synod.  Many  books  were  dis¬ 
puted  after  that  date,  and  some  are  in  question 
to  this  day. 

The  Council  of  Trent,  A.  D.  1545,  closed  the 
Canon  for  Roman  Catholics,  and  the  Council  of 
Jerusalem,  A.  D.  1672,  for  Greek  Catholics.  For 
the  Protestants,  there  is  no  officially  closed 
Canon. 

How  was  this  work  accomplished?  Who  de¬ 
termined  what  books  should  go  to  form  the  Bible? 
By  what  method  was  the  Bible  completed? 
Speaking  generally,  the  books  of  the  Bible  secured 
recognition  by  commending  themselves,  by  prov¬ 
ing  their  worth  in  the  experiences  of  the  churches. 
Out  of  a  diversity  of  views  there  merged  a  unity 
or  general  consensus  among  the  churches.  The 
books  approved  by  use  in  the  churches  were  then 
approved  by  the  judgment  of  the  scholars. 

[17] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


Taking  the  Old  Testament  first,  these  are  the 
facts.  Ezra  and  those  who  followed  him,  took 
that  great  mass  of  literature  which  presented 
itself  as  sacred  and  submitted  it  to  critical  inves¬ 
tigation  and  judgment.  Of  that  literature  we 
now  know : 

1.  That  some  books  were  rejected  as  unworthy, 
e.  g.,  Fourth  (Second)  Esdras,  which  never  ap¬ 
peared  in  any  list  of  the  Septuagint. 

2.  That  some  books  had  been  lost,  e.  g.,  The 
Book  of  the  Law  of  God  (Josh.  24  :  26),  The 
Book  of  the  Wars  of  the  Lord  (Num.  21  :  14), 
The  Books  of  Nathan  the  Prophet  and  Gad  the 
Seer  (1  Chron.  29  :  29),  The  Prophecy  of  Ahi- 
jah,  The  Visions  of  Iddo  (2  Chron.  9  :  29),  The 
Book  of  Jehu  (2  Chron.  20  :  34). 

3.  That  some  books  were  controverted,  ac¬ 
cepted  by  one  party  and  rejected  by  another,  e.  g., 
the  Apocryphal  Books — Tobias,  Judith,  Wisdom, 
Ecclesiasticus,  Baruch,  First  and  Second  Macca¬ 
bees. 

4.  That  some  books  were  accepted  by  all  par¬ 
ties,  namely,  the  books  of  the  present  Hebrew 
Bible  (black). 

By  a  similar  process,  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament  were  formed  into  a  unity.  Existing 
separately  or  in  groups,  the  books  were  finally 
brought  together  by  the  test  of  use  in  the  churches 


HOW  WAS  THE  BIBLE  BORN? 


and  by  the  judgment  of  Christian  scholars.  As 
with  the  literature  of  the  Hebrew  Church  so  with 
that  of  the  Christian  Church. 

1.  Some  books  were  rejected,  e.  g.,  all  of  the 
Apocryphal  books. 

2.  Some  books  were  lost,  e.  g.,  Paul’s  first 
letter  to  the  Corinthians,  (i  Cor.  5:9.) 

3.  Some  books  were  accepted  after  much  hesi¬ 
tation,  e.  g.,  Hebrews,  Second  Peter,  Second  and 
Third  John,  Jude,  Revelation. 

4.  Some  books  were  accepted  by  all.  These, 
with  those  questioned  for  a  time,  were  ultimately 
formed  into  the  New  Testament  (red). 

To  recapitulate,  taking  the  birth  of  Christ  as 
a  view-point  and  looking  back  four  hundred 
years,  we  see  the  birth  of  the  Old  Testament; 
looking  forward  four  hundred  years,  we  witness 
the  birth  of  the  New  Testament. 

With  these  facts  about  the  Canon  before  us,  a 
question  of  importance  arises?  Supposing  that 
we  should  find  one  of  the  lost  books  of  the  Bible, 
what  would  we  do  with  it?  Would  we  put  it  in 
the  Bible  if  it  proved  of  worth?  This  is  impor¬ 
tant  to  consider,  for  it  is  not  improbable,  with  the 
opening  up  of  the  great  Eastern  world  as  a  result 
of  the  Great  World  War,  that  we  may  find  many 
manuscripts  of  great  value.  The  Sinaitic  Manu¬ 
script,  one  of  the  two  oldest  Greek  manuscripts  of 

[19] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


the  New  Testament  in  the  world,  was  not  found 
until  1859.  And  the  Nile  Valley  yielded  up  in 
1896-97  and  1904  “  The  Sayings  of  Jesus.” 

Again,  the  books  of  Daniel  and  Revelation  are 
being  accorded  a  position  of  preeminent  honor 
and  authority  by  many  today.  This  must  appear 
strange  in  the  light  of  the  facts.  The  book  of 
Revelation  was  one  of  the  last  to  be  received  into 
the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament.  For  long  years 
it  failed  to  win  the  favor  of  large  sections  of  the 
Church.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  Gregory  Nazianzen, 
Amphilochius  of  Iconium,  and  the  Council  of 
Laodicea  in  363  all  rejected  the  book.  Eusebius 
wavered.  That  branch  of  the  Syrian  Church 
which  holds  to  the  Peshito  rejects  the  book  of 
Revelation  to  this  day.  Among  the  Reformers, 
Luther  and  Zwingli  regarded  the  book  as  of  little 
worth.  Calvin  did  not  comment  upon  it. 

In  like  manner,  the  book  of  Daniel  was  one  of 
the  last  books  added  to  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Tes¬ 
tament.  It  was  not  written  until  about  the  middle 
of  the  second  century  B.  C.  The  Hebrew  did 
not  place  the  book  of  Daniel  among  the  prophets 
in  his  canon  of  Scripture,  but  among  the  Writings 
or  Hagiographa. 

That  the  books  of  Daniel  and  Revelation 
should  now  be  exalted  to  pinnacles  of  honor  and 
made  to  appear  as  the  keys  by  which  the  doors  of 

[20] 


HOW  WAS  THE  BIBLE  BORN? 


Divine  Revelation  are  permitted  to  swing  open, 
is,  to  say  the  least,  an  ignoring  of  the  facts  of 
history. 

In  addition  to  this  false  position  assigned  to 
the  book  of  Revelation  as  a  whole,  there  is  to  be 
noted  a  false  use  of  some  of  its  parts.  The 
anathema  in  Revelation  22  :  18,  19,  about  “  add¬ 
ing  to  ”  or  “  taking  away  from  the  words  of  the 
book  ”  and  “  God  adding  plagues  ”  or  “  taking 
away  participation  in  the  Book  of  Life  and  the 
Holy  City,”  is  often  used  as  though  it  had  refer¬ 
ence  to  the  Bible  as  a  whole. 

In  view  of  the  facts  as  to  the  book  of  Revela¬ 
tion,  that  it  was  a  late  addition  to  the  Bible  and  is 
even  now  not  regarded  as  a  part  of  the  Bible  by 
that  branch  of  the  Syrian  Church  which  uses  the 
Peshito,  the  falsity  of  this  use  of  that  anathema 
is  apparent.  The  curse  pronounced  on  those  who 
“  add  to  or  take  away  ”  has  no  reference  to  the 
Bible  as  a  whole,  but  only  to  that  particular  book 
to  which  the  curse  is  attached,  i.  e.,  the  book  of 
Revelation.  Any  other  application  of  the  anath¬ 
ema  can  only  be  a  perversion  of  the  purpose  of 
the  author  as  well  as  of  the  Scripture.  The 
placing  of  an  anathema  at  the  end  of  a  work  was 
a  common  custom  in  those  days. 

A  proper  regard  for  the  facts  of  the  Bible 
will  save  us  from  many  a  pitfall  in  the  use  of 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


the  Bible.  Take  Paul’s  counsel  to  Timothy: 
“  All  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God 
and  is  profitable  for  doctrine,”  etc.  (2  Tim. 
3  :  16,  1 7).  To  what  Scripture  was  Paul  re¬ 
ferring?  To  the  only  Scriptures  that  were 
recognized  in  his  day,  to  the  Scriptures  contained 
in  the  Old  Testament.  The  present  books  of  the 
New  Testament  did  not  begin  to  be  set  up  along¬ 
side  those  of  the  Old  Testament  for  one  hundred 
years  after  Paul’s  day,  nor  was  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  Canon  completed  until  more  than  three  hun¬ 
dred  years  after  Paul  wrote  these  words  to  Tim¬ 
othy.  And  yet  how  many  quote  these  words  as 
though  they  referred  to  the  Bible  as  a  whole? 
Only  as  we  know  the  facts  about  the  Bible  can 
we  deal  fairly  with  the  Bible.  We  honor  the 
Book  when  we  honor  the  facts  about  the  Book. 


[22] 


V 


HOW  CAME  THE  GREEK  CIVILIZATION 
TO  SPLIT  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  INTO 

TWO  STREAMS? 

Go  back  to  Ezra.  Picture  those  streams  of 
Divine  experience  coming  down  through  two 
thousand  years  and  being  gathered  into  a  single 
stream.  As  this  stream  moves  onward,  it  splits 
into  two  streams.  One  shoots  to  the  left  and 
goes  down  through  history  as  the  pure  Hebrew 
stream  (black).  The  other  stream  shoots  off  to 
the  right  and  moves  through  the  centuries  as  the 
Greek-Hebrew  stream  (yellow).1  This  is  known 
as  the  Septuagint  or  LXX. 

How  did  this  happen?  Very  naturally.  The 
conquering  armies  of  Alexander  the  Great 
stamped  the  Greek  civilization  upon  the  world 
and  with  it  the  Greek  language.  Persecutions 
and  necessities  drove  some  Jews  into  Alexandria 
in  Egypt.  Speaking  the  Greek  language,  they 
very  naturally  desired  their  Scriptures  in  the  lan¬ 
guage  with  which  they  were  familiar.  Accord¬ 
ingly,  some  time  between  277  and  132  B.  C.,  this 

1  See  Chart  on  p.  25,  and  compare  it  with  the  large  Chart  in  colors. 

r  23] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


great  work  of  translation  was  accomplished.  The 
Septuagint  has  been  a  very  influential  stream. 

The  story  runs  thus :  Ptolemy  Philadelphus, 
King  of  Egypt,  gathered  for  the  work  seventy- 
two  scribes,  six  out  of  each  of  the  twelve  tribes 
of  Israel.  They  met,  labored  separately  for  sev¬ 
enty-two  days,  and  submitted  their  translations, 
when  lo!  the  translations  were  discovered  to  be 
all  alike.  This  story  is  fanciful,  similar  to  one 
about  Ezra.  Of  Ezra,  it  was  related  that  when 
he  collected  the  Scriptures,  some  were  found  to  be 
missing,  and  he,  from  memory  or  by  inspiration, 
reproduced  them  all. 

This  Greek  translation  of  the  Hebrew  Scrip¬ 
tures  gave  great  offense  to  the  strict  Jews  of 
Palestine.  They  regarded  it  as  a  sacrilege  equal 
to  the  worship  of  the  golden  calf.  A  day  of 
fasting  and  humiliation  was  held  annually  to 
atone  for  the  profanation.  The  strict  Jews  of 
Palestine  never  acknowledged  the  authority  of 
this  Greek-Hebrew  Version,  the  Septuagint.  But 
the  great  mass  of  the  Greek-speaking  Jews  in 
Palestine  and  elsewhere  did.  It  was  the  Bible  of 
Stephen  and  of  Paul.  (Acts  6  :  9;  2  Tim.  3  :  15.) 
Thirty-three  out  of  thirty-seven  quotations  from 
the  Old  Testament  in  the  New  Testament  accred¬ 
ited  to  Jesus,  and  three  hundred  out  of  the  entire 
three  hundred  and  fifty  quotations  from  the  Old 

[24] 


CANON  CLOSED! 
A.D. 

TALMUDISTS 

300 

MASSORETES 

tryjV 

1000 

1500 


24BkS. 


EZRA 

444RC.I 


1800 


1900 


39  8KS+AP0C. 
^^^WO<277-132  B.C. 

H I  ORDER  BKS.  I  IqUOTED  N.T. 
ORIOEN  IO  GRKS. 


HEXAPLA 


JEWS  REJECT 


NO  APOC.  g-g  APOCRYPHA 
MSS.  DEST.  I nlTEXT  VARIES! 
OLDEST  MS.916|  1 GRK.  CHURCH 
D|  PRINTED  1488 1  gXlMENES 
PI  LUTHER  U  POLYGLOT 


Iwr — iKf— i 

Chart  showing  the  development  of  the  Old  Testament  in  its 
two  forms,  Hebrew  and  Greek.  See  full  Chart  in  colors. 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


Testament  in  the  New  Testament  are  from  this 
Greek-Hebrew  Bible  (yellow). 

Jesus  may  have  used  these  Greek  Scriptures. 
Of  this  we  are  not  informed.  If  so,  it  would 
have  been  outside  of  the  opposing  synagogues. 
The  Hebrew  Bible  (black)  would  have  been  im¬ 
perative  there.  Aramaic  was  the  common  lan¬ 
guage  of  the  Jews  in  Palestine.  Jesus  spake  this 
tongue.  Remnants  of  it  are  found  in  the  New 
Testament,  as  for  example,  “  Eloi,  Eloi,  lama 
sabachthani  ?  ”  A  portion  of  Daniel  is  also  in 
Aramaic. 

In  the  Second  Century  the  Christians  made 
such  free  use  of  the  Septuagint  as  an  authority 
that  the  Jews  abandoned  it  for  the  Hebrew. 
From  the  Second  Century  A.  D.,  the  Hebrew 
stream  (black)  has  been  the  source  of  authority 
for  all  the  Jews. 

The  Septuagint  or  LXX  is  the  official  text  of  the  Greek 
Catholic  Church,  and  the  ancient  Latin  versions  used  in  the 
Western  Church  were  made  from  it.  The  earliest  trans¬ 
lation  adopted  in  the  Latin  Church,  the  Vetus  I  tala,  was 
directly  from  the  Septuagint. 2 

When  those  streams  of  Divine  experience, 
which  had  been  gathered  up  by  Ezra  and  others 
into  one  great  stream,  split  into  two  streams,  the 
split  was  sharp  and  destined  to  leave  its  impress 

2  New  Roman  Catholic  Encyclopedia,  Vol.  XVII,  p.  722. 

[26] 


INFLUENCE  OF  GREEK  CIVILIZATION 


upon  the  future  movement  of  all  streams.  The 
separation  between  the  Hebrew  (black)  and  the 
Greek-Hebrew  (yellow)  streams  is  so  marked 
and  so  apparently  irreconcilable  that  no  one  in 
two  thousand  years  has  been  able  to  bring  them 
into  harmony. 

First  and  most  important  of  all,  the  source  of 
the  Hebrew  text  differs  from  the  source  of  the 
Septuagint.  The  transcribers  of  the  Hebrew 
(black)  must  have  used  a  different  original  copy 
from  the  translators  of  the  LXX  (yellow).  The 
chapters  in  Jeremiah  have  not  the  same  order  in 
Hebrew  as  in  Greek. 

Origen,  A.  D.  185-254,  the  greatest  scholar  of 
his  day,  worked  for  twenty-eight  years  in  the 
effort  to  resolve  the  differences.  When  we  re¬ 
member  that  the  work  of  copying  the  Scriptures 
had  to  be  done  by  hand,  what  Origen  did  seems 
remarkable  even  in  this  remarkable  age.  His 
Hexapla  was  a  reproduction  of  six  translations 
of  the  Hebrew  Bible  in  six  parallel  columns  on 
parchment.  First,  he  set  down  the  Hebrew. 
Then  he  turned  that  Hebrew  into  Greek.  Next 
he  copied  the  Septuagint  or  LXX,  and  then  set 
over  against  these  three  columns  three  other 
columns,  each  containing  a  translation  of  the 
Hebrew  into  Greek  by  Aquila,  Symmachus,  and 
Theodotion  respectively.  Only  a  few  fragments 

[2  7] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


of  this  monumental  work  have  been  preserved, 
but  its  influence  and  example  abide. 

Secondly,  the  texts  of  the  Hebrew  (black)  and 
Greek-Hebrew  (yellow)  are  not  only  different; 
the  number  and  order  of  their  books  differ  also. 

1.  The  Hebrew  has  twenty-four  books;  the 
LXX  has  thirty-nine  books  plus  the  Apocrypha. 
In  the  Hebrew,  Samuel,  Kings,  and  Chronicles 
each  represent  one  book.  In  the  Septuagint,  they 
are  divided  into  two  books  each.  In  the  Hebrew, 
Ezra  and  Nehemiah  form  one  book  as  do  also 
the  Twelve  Minor  Prophets.  In  the  Septuagint 
they  are  classified  separately.  Thus  the  Hebrew 
numbers  twenty-four  books;  the  Septuagint,  thir¬ 
ty-nine  books.  Our  Bibles  follow  the  Septuagint, 
numbering  thirty-nine  books  in  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment,  omitting,  however,  the  Apocrypha. 

2.  The  order  of  arrangement  of  the  books. in 
the  Hebrew  follows  the  steps  of  the  growth  of 
the  Canon.  The  order  is  as  follows : 

(1)  Books  of  the  Law — Genesis,  Exodus, 

Leviticus,  Numbers,  Deuteronomy. 

(2)  Prophetical  Books 

a.  Former  Prophet  s — Joshua,  Judges, 
Samuel,  Kings. 

b.  Later  Prophet  s — Isaiah,  Jeremiah, 
Ezekiel.  The  Twelve  Minor  Prophets. 

[28] 


INFLUENCE  OF  GREEK  CIVILIZATION 


(3)  The  Writings  or  Hagiograph  a — 
Psalms,  Proverbs,  Job,  Ruth,  Lamentations, 
Ecclesiastes,  Esther,  Song  of  Songs,  Daniel, 
Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  Chronicles. 

The  Septuagint  departed  from  the  order  of  the 
Hebrew.  Our  Bibles  follow  in  part  the  order  of 
arrangement  of  the  books  in  the  Hebrew  and  in 
the  Septuagint,  and  in  part  an  independent  order. 


Hebrew 

Genesis 

Exodus 

Leviticus 

Numbers 

Deuteronomy 

Joshua 

Judges 

Samuel 

Kings 

Isaiah 

Jeremiah 

Ezekiel 

Twelve  Minor 
Prophets 


Psalms 

Proverbs 

Job 

Song  of  Songs 


Ruth 

Lamentations 

Ecclesiastes 


Esther 

Daniel 

Ezra  -  Nehe¬ 
miah 

Chronicles 


Septuagint 

Genesis 

Exodus 

Leviticus 

Numbers 

Deuteronomy 

Joshua 

Judges 

Ruth 

I  Kings 

II  Kings 

III  Kings 

IV  Kings 

I  Chronicles 

II  Chronicles 

I  Ezra 

II  Ezra 

Psalms 

Proverbs 

Ecclesiastes 


Song  of  Songs 
Job 

Wisdom  of 
Solomon 

Ecclesiasticus 

Esther 

Judith 

Tobit 

Hosea 

Amos 


Rheims-Douay 

Genesis 

Exodus 

Leviticus 

Numbers 

Deuteronomy 

Joshua 

Judges 

Ruth 

I  Kings 

II  Kings 

III  Kings 

IV  Kings 

I  Paralipome- 
non 

II  Paralipom- 
enon 

I  Esdras 

II  Esdras,  alias 
Nehimias 

Tobias 
Judith 
Esther  with 
additions 
ch.  10  :  4- 
16  :  24 
Job 

Psalms 

Proverbs 

Ecclesiastes 
Canticle  of 
Canticles 
Wisdom 

Ecclesiasticus 

Isias 

Jeremias 


Revised 

Genesis 

Exodus 

Leviticus 

Numbers 

Deuteronomy 

Joshua 

Judges 

Ruth 

I  Samuel 

II  Samuel 

I  Kings 

II  Kings 

I  Chronicles 

II  Chronicles 
Ezra 

Nehemiah 

Esther 

Job 


Psalms 

Proverbs 

Ecclesiastes 

Song  of  Solo¬ 
mon 
Isaiah 

Jeremiah 

Lamentations 

Ezekiel 

Daniel 


[29] 


D 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


Hebrew 


Septuagint 

Rheims-Douay 

Revised 

Micah 

Lamentations 

Joel 

Baruch 

Obadiah 

Ezechiel 

Jonah 

Daniel  (Song  of 
Three  Holy 
Children, 
His  tory  of 
Susanna, 
Bel  and  the 
Dragon),  ch. 

3  :  24-40; 

13  ;  1  to  14: 

Nahum 

40 

Osee 

Hosea 

Habukkuk 

Joel 

Joel 

Zephaniah 

Haggai 

Zechariah 

Amos 

Amos 

Malachi 

Obadias 

Obadiah 

Isaiah 

Jonas 

Jonah 

Jeremiah 

Micheas 

Micah 

Baruch 

Nahum 

Nahum 

Lamentations 
Epistle  of 

Habacuc 

Habakkuk 

Jeremiah 

Sophronias 

Zephaniah 

Ezekiel 

Aggeus 

Haggai 

Daniel 

Zacharias 

Zechariah 

Susanna 

Bel  and  the 

Malachias 

Malachi 

Dragon 

I  Maccabees 

I  Maccabees 

II  Maccabees 

III  Maccabees 

IV  Maccabees 
Psalm  of 

Solomon 

II  Maccabees 

The  Hebrew  and  the  LXX  differ  also  with 
reference  to  the  value  of  the  Apocrypha.  The 
Hebrew  rejected,  the  Septuagint  accepted  these 
books.  By  a  strange  fate  this  division  of  opinion 
concerning  the  Apocrypha  has  come  down 
through  the  centuries  dividing  the  Christians  as  it 
divided  the  Jews  at  the  beginning.  This  differ¬ 
ence  of  view  originated  two  centuries  before  Jesus 
Christ  was  born  between  the  Jews  of  Palestine 
and  the  Jews  of  Alexandria  in  Egypt. 


[30] 


INFLUENCE  OF  GREEK  CIVILIZATION 


The  Apocrypha  were  a  constituent  part  of  the 
Septuagint  or  LXX.  This  Greek-Hebrew  Bible 
was  undoubtedly  the  Bible  of  Stephen  and  of 
Paul,  perhaps  also  of  Jesus.  The  writers  of  the 
New  Testament  quoted  from  it  almost  exclu¬ 
sively,  but  only  one  or  two  refer  to  Apocryphal 
books.  Jude  quotes  from  the  Book  of  Enoch 
and  Paul  from  Aratus  or  Epimenides  in  Acts 
1 7  :  28;  Titus  1  :  12. 

The  oldest  manuscripts,  such  as  the  Sinaitic, 
Vatican,  Alexandrian,  and  Bezas,  are  of  the 
Septuagint  and  contain  the  Apocrypha.  The  Old 
Syriac  manuscript,  Peshito,  omitted  the  Apocry¬ 
pha  but  a  later  revision  included  them.  They  are 
also  found  in  the  Ethiopic  together  with  books 
found  in  few  other  manuscripts,  i.  e.,  Enoch, 
Jubilees,  Ascension  of  Isaiah.  The  Armenian 
makes  no  distinction  between  Canonical  and 
Apocryphal  books. 

Honor  was  also  conferred  upon  the  Apocrypha 
by  eminent  Church  Fathers.  Irenaeus,  Tertullian, 
and  Clement  of  Alexandria  used  them  as  well  as 
the  Book  of  Enoch.  Clement  also  quoted  from 
the  Assumption  of  Moses,  Fourth  Ezra,  and 
many  other  Apocryphal  books  unknown  to  us. 
Origen  declared  that  some  of  the  Apocrypha 
“  pertain  to  the  demonstration  of  our  Scriptures.” 

Conflicting  views  of  inspiration  separated  the 

[31] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


Jews.  Those  of  the  stricter  sort  in  Palestine  held 
that  inspiration  ended  with  the  Prophets.  The 
more  liberal  Jews  of  Alexandria  in  Egypt  re¬ 
garded  it  as  continuing.  Christians  of  the  East 
and  of  the  West  likewise  assumed  varying  atti¬ 
tudes  upon  the  subject. 

The  East  accepted  the  Apocrypha  but  scarcely 
knew  how  to  value  or  classify  them.  Finally  in 
1672  the  Council  of  Jerusalem  declared  their  full 
canonicity.  The  official  Bible  of  the  Greek 
Church  has  the  Prayer  of  Manasseh  after  Chron¬ 
icles.  Nehemiah  is  followed  by  First  Esdras, 
Tobias,  and  Judith;  Wisdom,  and  Sirach  come 
after  Canticles.  Lamentations  is  followed  by  the 
Epistle  of  Jeremiah  and  Baruch.  After  Malachi 
come  First,  Second,  and  Third  Maccabees  and 
Fourth  Ezra.  But  Philaret’s  Longer  Catechism 
of  the  Orthodox  Catholic  Eastern  Church 
(1839)  pronounces  the  Apocrypha  of  value  only 
for  edification. 

In  the  West  two  standards  of  judgment  have 
prevailed,  the  Roman  Catholic  and  the  Protestant. 
The  Roman  Catholic  adopted  the  Apocrypha  by 
way  of  the  Itala  through  the  Vulgate.  The  Old 
Latin  or  Itala  which  Jerome  revised  came  from 
the  Septuagint.  It  omitted,  however,  Third  and 
Fourth  Maccabees  and  added  Second  Esdras. 
Jerome  felt  that  the  Apocrypha  should  occupy  a 

[32] 


INFLUENCE  OF  GREEK  CIVILIZATION 


subordinate  place  but  included  them  in  his  re¬ 
vision.  Notable  men  through  the  centuries  fol¬ 
lowing  held  this  view,  as  Hugo  St.  Victor 
(d.  1140)  and  Nicolaus  of  Tyra  (d.  1340).  Car¬ 
dinal  Ximenes  ( 1437-1517)  would  have  kept 
them  outside  the  Canon.  The  Council  of  Trent 
(1545)  pronounced  in  favor  of  the  Apocrypha 
and  set  up  the  Vulgate  as  one  standard  of  au¬ 
thority.  Modern  Catholics  accuse  the  Jews  of 
shortening  the  Septuagint  in  the  Hebrew  to  an¬ 
tagonize  Christianity.  The  Canon  of  the  LXX  is 
held  by  them  to  be  the  original  one. 

Sixtus  Senensis  in  his  Bibliotheca  Sancta  clas¬ 
sifies  the  following  books  as  being  of  value  only 
for  edification:  Esther,  Tobias,  Judith,  Baruch, 
Epistle  of  Jeremiah,  Wisdom,  Sirach,  additions 
to  Daniel,  First  and  Second  Maccabees  in  the  Old 
Testament,  and  Mark  16  :  9-20,  Luke  22  :  43, 
44,  John  7  :  53  to  8  :  11,  Hebrews,  James,  Sec¬ 
ond  Peter,  Second  and  Third  John,  Jude,  and 
Revelation.  These  books  he  declares  to  be 
late  in  their  origin,  to  have  been  regarded  by 
the  Fathers  Athanasius  and  Rufinus  as  Apoc¬ 
ryphal  and  not  Canonical,  then  at  last  exalted  as 
Scripture  of  irrefragable  authority. 

Protestant  opinion  was  incarnated  by  Luther. 
He  subordinated  the  Apocrypha  to  a  standard 
below  Scripture  and  placed  them  between  the  Old 

[33] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


Testament  and  New  Testament.  The  French 
Bible  of  Calvin  followed  the  same  course  but 
added  First  and  Second  Esdras.  Coverdale 
(1536)  and  Matthew’s  Bible  (1537)  held  to 
Luther’s  ideal.  Cranmer’s  Bible  (1540)  termed 
the  Apocrypha  the  Hagiographa,  but  in  the  edi¬ 
tion  of  1541  the  Apocrypha  were  classified  as  the 
fourth  part  of  the  Bible.  The  Authorized  Ver¬ 
sion  ( 161 1-1629)  retained  Luther’s  order,  but  the 
edition  of  1629  omitted  the  Apocrypha.  In  1648 
the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  pronounced 
the  Apocrypha  to  be  no  part  of  Scripture.  The 
British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society  (1827)  for¬ 
bade  the  publication  of  the  Apocrypha  in  any  of 
their  Bibles.  The  Lutheran,  Anglican,  and  Prot¬ 
estant  Episcopal  churches  have  uniformly  used 
these  books  in  their  services  for  edification.  The 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  has  recently  per¬ 
mitted  their  use  in  services  on  the  Lord’s  Day. 

Empires  as  well  as  churches  have  been  affected 
by  this  dispute  over  the  Apocrypha.  In  1902, 
Edward  VII  was  crowned  King  of  England.  The 
British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society  planned  to 
publish  a  special  copy  of  the  Bible  for  the  King 
on  taking  his  coronation  oath.  Investigation  re¬ 
vealed  the  fact  that  the  Apocrypha  made  the  plan 
impossible.  The  laws  of  England  demanded  that 
the  King  take  his  oath  upon  a  complete  Bible, 

[34] 


INFLUENCE  OF  GREEK  CIVILIZATION 


i.  e.,  a  Bible  containing  the  Apocrypha.  The  con¬ 
stitution  of  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society 
forbade  the  publication  of  a  Bible  with  the  Apoc¬ 
rypha.  The  Society,  therefore,  presented  the 
King  a  copy  of  the  Scriptures  while  the  King 
took  his  oath  upon  a  Bible  which  included  the 
Apocrypha.  In  all  this  we  see  the  survival  in  the 
present  of  laws  enacted  when  England  was 
Catholic. 

How  few  people  know  what  the  Apocrypha  are. 
Many  of  the  leading  people  in  our  Protestant 
churches  have  never  heard  of  them.  The  great 
masses  go  on  unconscious  of  their  existence. 
Should  the  name  be  mentioned,  they  ask  in  won¬ 
derment,  what  are  the  Apocrypha?  They  are 
surprised  to  learn  that  the  Apocrypha  are  in  part 
the  series  of  books  printed  and  bound  between  the 
Old  Testament  and  the  New  Testament  in  many 
of  the  large  Bibles  found  on  our  pulpits.  These 
books  are  sometimes  called  non-canonical  or  deu- 
tero-canonical.  They  are  not  printed  in  the 
smaller  Protestant  Bibles  or  in  any  of  the  Cal- 
vinistic.  All  Roman  Catholic  and  Greek  Catholic 
Bibles  contain  them. 


[35] 


VI 


DOMINANCE  OF  THE  LATIN  CIVILIZA- 
TION  OVER  THE  STREAMS  OF  DIVINE 

EXPERIENCE 

Two  great  streams  of  Divine  experience  came 
from  Ezra  and  Jesus  Christ.  How  were  they 
united?  After  Ezra,  the  Hebrew  stream  split 
into  two  streams,  the  Hebrew  (black)  and  the 
Greek- Hebrew  (yellow).  For  a  time  these  two 
streams  flowed  parallel  to  one  another  and  to 
that  one  (red)  coming  from  Jesus  Christ. 

In  the  second  century  after  Christ  these  three 
streams  had  met  in  the  Peshito  (Syriac),  Old 
Latin,  and  Egyptian  versions.  Their  influence, 
however,  was  not  destined  to  be  far-reaching. 
Quite  different  was  the  union  effected  in  A.  D. 
4°5  by  Jerome.  He  produced  one  mighty  stream 
out  of  the  three  streams  (black,  yellow,  red).1 
Jerome’s  Vulgate  affected  the  whole  of  Western 
civilization.  So  dominant  was  this  Latin  stream 
that  it  held  apart  the  two  original  streams  for  a 
thousand  years.  Not  in  a  thousand  years,  from 
the  days  of  Jerome  to  the  days  of  William  Tyn- 

1  See  Chart  on  p.  3  7,  and  compare  with  Chart  in  colors. 

[36] 


(Peshito)  and  Egyptian  languages. 
Compare  with  full  Chart  in  colors. 


w  n 

rt>  3* 

M-,  aj 

O 

>1  M- 

ct  3* 

s:  § 

y  5 

h-*« 

so  a 
cr  orq 

2  ^ 

3  3* 

M-  ^ 

£  3 

O  3 

>  § 


rr 

C+  3* 
3  CD 


o> 

O 

H 

p 


O 

• 

H 
p 

M  3 

g  O. 

CL 

H  3 

p  H 

Cl  ’ 

t— »  • 

O*  3 
<5  M- 
3  n 

§  ET 

M . 

f+  M  # 

rt>  a 

< 

»-»  •  —T1 

3  H* 
rt  p 

r-t* 

CD  CD 

2S 

Cl 


cr.  P 

3  • 


Si* 

p* 


in 

*< 

*i 

p’ 

o 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


dale,  did  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  of  the  Old  Tes¬ 
tament  and  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament 
meet  and  mingle  in  a  vital  way. 

The  Latin  Vulgate  (purple)  grew  out  of  the 
Itala  or  Old  Latin.  The  texts  of  these  Latin 
Bibles1  of  the  second  century  had  become  corrupt, 
full  of  errors.  The  need  of  a  new,  a  corrected 
Bible  was  keenly  felt.  The  one  man  qualified  for 
such  a  work  seemed  to  be  Jerome,  but  Jerome 
hesitated  to  assume  the  responsibility.  He  knew 
the  prejudices  of  humanity  and  felt  that  he  would 
be  cursed  for  his  pains  by  those  who,  he  said, 
“  thought  ignorance,  was  holiness.”  Urged  by 
Pope  Damasus,  however,  Jerome  undertook  the 
task.  He  began  his  work  in  Rome  and  completed 
it  in  the  cell  of  a  monastery  at  Bethlehem. 

Jerome’s  first  thought  was  simply  to  revise  the 
Itala,  the  popular  Latin  Bible.  He  soon  discov¬ 
ered  the  necessity  of  going  back  to  the  original 
sources.  With  the  aid  of  Greek  versions,  collec¬ 
tions  from  Origen  and  the  original  text,  Jerome 
brought  out  his  revised  New  Testament.  For 
the  Old  Testament  he  first  turned  to  the  Sep- 
tuagint  (yellow).  The  difficulties  encountered 
caused  him  to  abandon  this  source  for  the  He¬ 
brew  (black).  In  his  labors,  Jerome  had  the 
assistance  of  Origen’s  Hexapla.  Origen  had 
toiled  for  twenty-eight  years,  and  now  Jerome 

[38] 


DOMINANCE  OF  THE  LATIN  CIVILIZATION 


was  to  work  for  fourteen  years  in  the  effort  to 
arrive  at  the  true  text  of  the  Old  Testament. 

The  Vulgate  was  completed  in  405.  It  met 
with  bitter  opposition  from  conservative  Chris¬ 
tians  as  did  the  Septuagint  previously  from  con¬ 
servative  Jews.  Jerome  had  made  a  radical  break 
with  the  past.  The  Itala,  the  popular  Bible  of  the 
day,  had  been  translated  from  the  Septuagint. 
Jerome  had  forsaken  this  for  the  Hebrew.  In 
translating,  he  had  dared  to  change  familiar  pas¬ 
sages.  This  angered  the  people.  They  accused 
him  “  of  tampering  with  our  Lord’s  own  words 
and  of  denying  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures.” 
Churches  rebelled.  When  a  bishop  in  North 
Africa  read  from  the  Vulgate  the  story  of  Jonah 
and  used  the  word  hedera  instead  of  cucurbita 
to  translate  “  gourd,”  nearly  all  the  people  left 
the  church.  Right  or  wrong,  conservatism  in¬ 
sisted  on  hearing  the  old  word  cucurbita. 

Jerome  was  equally  determined.  He  would 
make  no  concessions  to  those  whom  he  called 
“  two-legged  asses.”  He  died  without  seeing 
the  triumph  of  his  work.  For  one  hundred 
and  fifty  years  the  Vulgate  struggled  against 
opposition.  Finally,  in  the  sixth  century,  it  won 
the  favor  of  Pope  Gregory  the  Great  and  scholars 
generally.  Then  for  one  thousand  years,  it  was 
lifted  into  the  position  of  honor.  The  Council 

[39] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


of  Trent  (1546)  declared  the  Latin  Vulgate  to 
be  “  authentic,”  one  standard  of  authority  for 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  and  pronounced 
an  anathema  on  all  who  did  not  accept  the 
“  canon  ”  together  with  the  additions  to  Esther 
and  Daniel. 

In  the  struggle  between  the  Itala  and  the  Vul¬ 
gate,  the  texts  were  often  interchanged  by  those 
copying.  This,  together  with  other  corruptions, 
made  a  revision  of  the  Vulgate  necessary. 
Scholars  took  up  the  work  through  the  centuries, 
Alcuin  in  the  eighth,  Cardinal  Hugo  in  the  thir¬ 
teenth,  and  Cardinal  Ximenes  in  the  sixteenth 
century.  Cardinal  Hugo  was  not  content  simply 
to  restore  the  text  of  Jerome.  He  went  back  to 
the  Greek  and  Hebrew  originals.  This  was  be¬ 
fore  the  Council  of  Trent  had  made  the  text  of 
Jerome  authoritative.  Cardinal  Ximenes  in  the 
Complutensian  Polyglot  (1522)  laid  the  founda¬ 
tion  for  all  scholarly  efforts  in  the  future.  Like 
Origen  previously,  he  placed  the  various  texts  in 
parallel  columns — Hebrew,  Chaldee  Paraphrase, 
Greek  or  Septuagint,  Latin  Vulgate,  and  Greek 
New  Testament. 

The  Council  of  Trent  (1546)  made  a  definite 
effort  to  limit  the  texts  in  circulation  to  one.  The 
Latin  Vulgate  was  declared  to  be  the  “  authentic  ” 
text  for  all  “  public  lectures,  disputations,  ser- 

[40] 


DOMINANCE  OF  THE  LATIN  CIVILIZATION 


mons,  and  homilies  ”  in  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church.  “No  verbal  inspiration  or  infallible 
accuracy  was  claimed  for  it.”  The  Council  also 
ordered  that  the  text  of  the  Vulgate  be  freed 
from  errors.  Dr.  Hugh  Pope,  a  Roman  Cath¬ 
olic,  says,  “  They  seem  to  have  thought  that  it 
could  be  done  during  the  Session  of  the  Council !  ” 

Within  a  year,  John  Hentenius,  a  Dominican 
of  Louvain,  produced  what  is  known  as  the  Lou¬ 
vain  Bible,  1547.  After  that  the  work  dragged 
on  for  forty  years.  Then  Pope  Sixtus  V,  1586, 
brought  the  issue  to  a  climax  by  appointing  a 
commission  and  seeing  that  it  produced  results. 
When  the  Commission  had  completed  its  work, 
Sixtus  revised  their  findings  by  the  aid  of  the 
original  Greek  and  Hebrew  and  in  1590  issued 
the  revised  Vulgate.  He  declared  in  an  encyclical 
that  the  Sixtine  edition  of  the  Vulgate  was  to  be 
regarded  as  “  true,  lawful,  authentic,  and  authori¬ 
tative  in  all  public  and  private  disputations,  read¬ 
ing,  preaching,  and  explanation.”  He  also  for¬ 
bade  any  one  to  change  the  text  under  penalty 
of  anathema. 

Unfortunately  for  the  Pope,  the  edition  con¬ 
tained  many  errors.  Before  the  errors  could  be 
corrected,  Sixtus  V  died,  as  did  also  his  successor, 
Urban  VII.  A  new  commission  was  appointed  by 
Gregory  XIV  in  1591.  Bellarmine  proposed  to 

[41] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


the  Pope  that  the  new  edition  be  gotten  out  “  as 
soon  as  possible,”  “  reprinted  under  Sixtus’s 
name,”  and  that  the  errors  of  the  previous  edition 
be  blamed  on  “  the  printers  or  others.”  The  work 
was  completed  in  nineteen  days.  Before  the  new 
edition  could  be  issued,  Gregory  XIV  died.  His 
successor,  Innocent  IX,  followed  in  death  the 
same  year.  Then  came  Clement  VIII,  and  within 
seven  months  the  Clementine  Vulgate  was  issued 
(1592)  under  the  name  of  Sixtus  V. 

This  edition  of  Clement  was  not  more  for¬ 
tunate  than  that  of  Sixtus  in  the  matter  of  escap¬ 
ing  errors.2  Some  of  these  were  corrected  in  the 
editions  of  1593  and  1598.  “  No  official  Roman 
edition  of  the  Vulgate  has  been  published  since 
1598.”  For  nearly  one  hundred  years  the  name 
of  Sixtus  V  was  printed  on  the  title-page  of  the 
Clementine  Vulgate.  Not  until  1675  was  the 
name  of  Clement  substituted.  The  Bull  of  Sixtus 
V  was  suppressed  in  1593,  but  the  Bull  of  Clem¬ 
ent  VIII,  anathematizing  any  who  should  change 
the  text  of  the  Clementine  Vulgate  in  the  least 
particle,  is  still  in  force. 

Non-Catholics  are  apt  to  misunderstand  these 
anathemas  of  Sixtus  V  and  Clement  VIII.  To 

2  One  of  the  many  misprints  of  the  original  Clementine  Vulgate 
and  which  failed  to  be  corrected  in  the  two  subsequent  editions  was 
that  of  Genesis  35  :  8.  By  a  substitution  of  the  word  super  for 
subter  Rebecca’s  nurse  was  said  to  have  been  buried  “  on  top  of  ” 
an  oak  instead  of  “  under  ”  it. 


[42] 


DOMINANCE  OF  THE  LATIN  CIVILIZATION 


Non-Catholics  the  language  seems  to  be  binding, 
inflexible,  permanently  restrictive.  The  Romanist 
eludes  the  dilemma.  He  says : 

It  is  often  remarked  that  Clement  VIII,  who  published 
his  revised  edition  in  1592,  disregarded  this  Encyclical 
(Aiternus  Ille).  Yet  to  every  Catholic  it  should  be  perfectly 
plain  that  Sixtus  prohibited  only  unauthorized  persons 
from  making  changes  in  the  edition  he  was  publishing;  he 
could  never  have  meant  that  no  successor  of  his  in  the  See 
of  Peter  was  to  make  changes  in  the  text. 3 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  Sixtus  V  was  a  man 
of  high  intelligence,  “  a  great  and  most  learned 
Pontiff  ”  as  this  Catholic  confesses,  Non-Catho¬ 
lics  will  be  disposed  to  give  Sixtus  V  the  credit 
of  being  able  to  say  what  he  meant  to  say  in  the 
anathema  even  though  the  Catholic  should  assume 
that  Sixtus  “  could  never  have  meant  to  say  ” 
what  he  did  say. 

That  Sixtus  V  said  what  he  meant  to  say  is 
evidenced  further  in  that  he  went  beyond  the 
Council  of  Trent  and  ordained  that  the  Sixtine 
Vulgate  be  authentic  and  authoritative  not  only 
in  “  all  public  ”  but  also  in  “  all  public  and  private 
disputation,  reading,  preaching,  explanation.” 

Then  too,  as  the  text  of  the  edition  of  Clement 
differs  from  that  of  Sixtus  in  “  no  less  than  2,134 
places,”  the  Non-Catholic  will  wonder  why  the 

3  Rev.  Hugh  Pope,  O.  P.,  "  Eccl.  Review,”  October,  1911,  p.  440. 

[43] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


name  of  Sixtus  was  placed  on  the  Clementine 
Vulgate  for  more  than  fourscore  years.  Not 
until  1675  did  the  name  of  Clement  alone  get  on 
the  title-page  of  the  Vulgate  issued  by  him  in 
1592.  The  Non-Catholic  also  will  wonder  why 
Vallarsi  in  1734,  nearly  one  hundred  and  fifty 
years  after  the  Clementine  edition  was  issued, 
and  nearly  sixty  years  after  Clement’s  name  was 
put  on  the  Vulgate,  should  feel  compelled  to  bring 
out  a  corrected  edition  of  the  Vulgate,  not  as  the 
Bible  but  as  one  of  the  works  of  Jerome.  Was 
he  deterred  by  the  “  anathema  ”  or  by  the  taboo 
“  unauthorized  ”?  The  regular  form  of  title  on 
a  modern  Vulgate  Bible  reads,  Biblia  Sacra  Vul¬ 
gates  Editionis  Sixti  V.  Pont.  max.  jussu  recog - 
nita  et  Clementis  VIII  auctoritate  edita. 

Again,  to  the  Non-Catholic,  it  must  seem  pass¬ 
ing  strange  that  for  more  than  three  centuries  and 
a  half  the  Catholic  should  have  been  held  under 
the  domination  of  a  Bible  that  was  “  hastily  ”  in¬ 
troduced,  and  known  to  be  marred  by  many  errors. 
Nor  does  there  seem  to  be  a  movement  in  the 
Roman  Church  to  secure  a  perfect  Bible  by  resort 
to  the  original  manuscripts.  The  sole  effort  for 
centuries  has  been  and  is  now  to  attain  the  ideal 
of  the  Council  of  Trent  (1546),  “  which  aimed 
not  at  a  correction  of  St.  Jerome’s  work  but  at  a 
restoration  of  the  current  Bibles  to  the  state  in 


[44] 


DOMINANCE  OF  THE  LATIN  CIVILIZATION 


which  they  left  St.  Jerome’s  hands.”  When  Val- 
verde  presented  to  Pope  Clement  VIII  a 

list  of  at  least  two  hundred  places  in  which  the  proposed 
Vulgate  differed  from  the  Hebrew  or  Greek  originals, 
Clement,  after  taking  advice  on  the  matter,  imposed  per¬ 
petual  silence  on  him. 4 

Pope  Pius  X,  in  May,  1907,  committed  to  the 
Benedictine  Order  “the  restoration  of  the  primi¬ 
tive  text  of  St.  Jerome’s  own  version,  which  in 
the  course  of  centuries  has  become  considerably 
corrupted.”  The  head  of  this  Commission,  the 
Abbot  Gasquet,  writing  of  the  great  work  sub¬ 
mitted  to  Catholic  scholarship,  said : 6 

Its  end  is  not  to  produce  a  Latin  Bible  to  be  pro¬ 
posed  as  an  official  text  for  the  approbation  of  the  Church, 
but  to  take  merely  a  preliminary  step  towards  that  official 
version. 

Supposing  it  were  possible  to  “  achieve  the 
end  ”  sought,  a  text  of  the  Vulgate  as  it  left  the 
hands  of  Jerome,  what  would  be  the  situation? 
Fortunately  a  Catholic  answer  is  at  hand.  The 
Catholic  Encyclopedia  says : 

[Jerome]  is  open  to  reproach  for  not  having  sufficiently 
appreciated  the  Septuagint.  This  latter  version  was  made 
from  a  much  older  and  at  times  much  purer  Hebrew  text 
than  the  one  in  use  at  the  end  of  the  fourth  century.  Hence 


*  Rev.  Hugh  Pope,  O.  P.,  Eccl.  Review,  October,  1911,  p.  446. 
6  Catholic  Encyclopedia,  Art.  Vulgate. 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


the  necessity  of  taking  the  Septuagint  into  consideration 
in  any  attempt  to  restore  the  text  of  the  Old  Testament. 

The  situation  seems  to  be  this.  The  text  of  the 
present  Latin  Vulgate  is  corrupt.  Jerome’s  text 
is  sought.  If  Jerome’s  text  were  found,  it  would 
be  “  open  to  reproach,”  imperfect  so  far  as  the 
Old  Testament  is  concerned.  And  since  Jerome 
worked  for  fourteen  years  and  Origen  for 
twenty-eight  years  in  the  effort  to  discover  the 
true  text  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  solution  of 
the  difficulty  is  so  far  removed  that  the  Roman 
Church  probably  thinks  it  best  to  cut  the  Gordian 
knot,  accept  the  Vulgate,  and  ordain  that  it  be 
“  authoritative  ”  for  the  present  even  though  it 
be  not  “  authoritative.” 

And  the  situation  is  further  complicated  in  that 
Jerome  is  not  always  in  agreement  with  his  Vul¬ 
gate.  The  Rev.  Walter  S.  Drum,  S.  J.,  says, 
“  We  admit .  .  .  that  St.  Jerome  in  his  New  Testa¬ 
ment  Commentaries  does  not  always  follow  and 
at  times  rejects  our  present  Vulgate  readings.”  6 
The  Catholic  claim  that  “  God  guarantees  against 
any  substantial  error  in  transmission  ”  requires 
proof. 

The  Biblical  Commission  7  appointed  by  Pope 
Leo  XIII  has  a  wider  scope,  viz. : 

a  Eccl.  Rev.,  October,  1918,  p.  431. 

7  Cath.  Encycl.,  p.  557,  John  Corbett,  S.  J. 

[46] 


DOMINANCE  OF  THE  LATIN  CIVILIZATION 


1.  To  protect  and  defend  the  integrity  of  the  Catholic  faith 

in  Biblical  matters. 

2.  To  further  the  progress  of  exposition  of  the  Sacred 

Books,  taking  account  of  all  recent  discoveries. 

3.  To  decide  controversies  on  grave  questions  which  may 

arise  among  Catholic  scholars. 

4.  To  give  answers  to  Catholics  throughout  the  world  who 

may  consult  the  commission. 

5.  To  see  that  the  Vatican  Library  is  properly  furnished 

with  codices  and  necessary  books. 

6.  To  publish  studies  on  Scriptures  as  occasion  may  de¬ 

mand. 


Thus  far  the  Commission  has  pronounced  on 
five  points.  These  decisions  are  “  not  infallible 
though  approved  by  the  pope.”  They  are  “  to 
be  obeyed  and  not  to  be  questioned  in  public.” 
The  five  decisions  are : 

1.  Quotations  of  uninspired  writers  in  Scripture  are  not 

necessarily  Scripture. 

2.  Historical  character  of  Books  not  to  be  questioned 

where  formerly  held  to  be  historical  “  unless  in  a  case 
where  the  sense  of  the  Church  is  not  opposed,  and 
where,  subject  to  her  judgment,  it  is  proved  by  solid 
arguments  that  the  sacred  writer  did  not  intend  to 
write  history.” 

3.  Moses,  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch. 

4.  The  Fourth  Gospel,  John  the  author  and  historian. 

5.  Mark  16  :  9-20.  It  is  not  proved  that  Mark  did  not 

write  these  verses. 


The  Roman  Church  claims  to  be  the  “  sole 
guardian”  of  the  deposit  of  divine  revelation  in 


[47] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


its  twofold  aspect,  oral  tradition  and  written 
word.  In  the  light  of  facts,  the  question  arises 
in  the  mind  of  a  Non-Catholic,  What  virtue  is 
there  in  the  claim?  With  the  Bible  in  her  hands, 
the  Roman  Church  was  not  able  to  guard  it 
against  errors  and  corruptions.  Origen  made 
corrections  and  supplied  omissions  in  the  text  of 
Scripture,  indicating  such  changes  by  means  of 
signs.  Later  copyists  copied  without  the  signs. 
Pope  Damasus  appealed  to  Jerome  to  save  the 
situation.  The  Latin  Vulgate  was  Jerome’s  re¬ 
sponse.  The  Church  failed  to  recognize  its 
worth.  For  one  hundred  and  fifty  years  manu¬ 
scripts  were  made  by  combining  parts  of  the  Itala 
and  Vulgate.  “  Textual  corruptions,  additions, 
and  omissions  crept  into  the  primitive  text.” 
Jerome  was  accused  of  “  tampering  with  our 
Lord’s  own  words  and  of  denying  the  inspiration 
of  the  Scriptures.”  Even  in  this  age,  he  is  de¬ 
clared  to  be  “  open  to  reproach  for  not  having 
sufficiently  appreciated  the  Septuagint.” 

From  the  days  of  Jerome  to  that  of  Sixtus  V, 
the  Roman  Church  was  unable  to  guard  one 
single  manuscript,  the  Vulgate,  against  errors 
and  corruptions.  Over  the  question  of  the  cor¬ 
rect  text,  Sixtus  V  was  at  odds  with  the  Caraffa 
Commission  and  Clement  VIII  took  exceptions 
to  the  findings  of  the  Toletus  Commission.  At 

[48] 


DOMINANCE  OF  THE  LATIN  CIVILIZATION 


present  the  Roman  Church  has  neither  the  orig¬ 
inal  text  nor  can  she  tell  the  true  text.  Val verde 
showed  that  the  present  Vulgate  text  differs 
from  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  originals  “  in  at  least 
two  hundred  places.”  Catholics  declare  the 
Clementine  Vulgate-  “  inferior  to  the  Sixtine  Ver¬ 
sion  of  1590  which  it  hastily  superseded.”  Of 
Sixtus  V,  they  confess  “  no  doubt  too  he  acted 
hastily  in  adopting  certain  changes.” 

If,  therefore,  the  Roman  Church  as  “  sole 
guardian  ”  has  been  unable  to  guard  one  special 
“  written  revelation,”  i.  e.,  the.  Latin  Vulgate, 
against  errors  and  corruptions,  what  evidence  is 
there  that  she  has  been  able  to  guard  “  written 
revelation  ”  in  general?  And  if  she  has  failed  to 
guard  in  that  which  is  least  difficult,  namely  the 
written  word,  how  much  more  must  she  have 
failed  in  that  which  is  most  difficult,  namely,  the 
spoken  word?  The  plain  facts  of  the  errors  and 
corruptions;  omissions  and  interpolations  in  the 
written  tradition  are  strong  evidence  that  the 
oral  tradition  has  suffered  distortion  likewise. 

Truly  the  Non-Catholic  cannot  be  accused  of 
skepticism  in  failing  to  accept  the  Roman  claim 
of  “  sole  guardian.”  And  her  claim  to  be  the 
“  sole  guardian  ”  of  the  “  substance  ”  of  rev¬ 
elation  is  a  claim  to  conjure  with,  when  it  is  re¬ 
membered  what  stupendous  claims  are  built  for 

[49] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


the  Church  on  single  texts  of  Scripture.  Fur¬ 
thermore,  not  one  of  these  texts  is  admitted  by 
scholars  to  be  the  words  of  Jesus,  and  all  of  them 
are  open  to  grave  doubt.  Nor  can  the  apostle  of 
literalism  find  fault,  if  literalism  appears  to  be  a 
“  house  built  upon  the  sand.”  The  “  sole  guar¬ 
dian  ”  has  fallen  asleep  so  often  at  the  post  of 
duty  that  he  has  actually  lost  the  “  password.” 
He  cannot  tell  even  what  Jerome  wrote  down  for 
him  to  pass  on.  And  the  literalist  is  so  confused 
in  his  speech  that  confusion  is  made  to  appear  the 
chief  characteristic  of  the  Book  of  Truth.  Never 
can  humanity  be  persuaded  to  believe  that  the 
God  of  order  is  the  author  of  confusion.  By  this 
token  literalism  is  doomed  to  failure. 


[50] 


YII 


HOW  THE  ENGLISH  CIVILIZATION 
TURNED  ALL  STREAMS  OF  DIVINE 
EXPERIENCE  INTO  A  NEW  CHANNEL 

i 

The  overshowing  influence  of  the  Latin  civili¬ 
zation  stamped  itself  upon  the  combined  Hebrew 
(black-yellow)  and  Christian  (red)  streams  of 
Divine  experience  in  the  Latin  Vulgate  (purple). 
The  Greek  civilization  had  stamped  itself  pre¬ 
viously  upon  the  Hebrew  stream  in  the  Septua- 
gint  or  LXX.  For  a  thousand  years  the  Latin 
stream  dominated  Western  Europe,  holding  the 
two  great  original  streams  apart.  Not  until  the 
days  of  William  Tyndale  did  the  original  streams 
meet  and  mingle  in  a  vital  way  as  in  the  days  of 
Jerome.  During  this  time  another  great  civiliza¬ 
tion  arose  which  was  destined  to  color  the  streams 
of  Divine  experience  as  the  Latin  and  Greek  civ¬ 
ilizations  had  done.  That  civilization  was  the 
English  (blue). 1 

As  early  as  A.  D.  700,  Caedmon,  an  unedu- 

1  See  full  Chart  (blue)  and  Chart  on  p.  95. 

[51] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


cated  cowherd,  turned  into  poetic  form  the  Scrip¬ 
tures  which  were  read  to  him.  A  part  of  the 
Bible  was  given  to  the  people  in  their  own  tongue 
by  the  venerable  Bede  (800)  and  King  Alfred 
the  Great  (900).  Not  until  the  time  of  John 
Wyclif  (1382)  was  the  Bible  put  into  English  in 
a  way  to  affect  the  life  of  the  nation.  Wyclif 
turned  the  Latin  Vulgate  into  plain,  vigorous, 
homely  English  for  the  plain  people.  Many  of 
the  best-known  phrases  in  our  present  Bible  orig¬ 
inated  with  him,  e.  g.,  “  the  beame  and  the  mote/’ 
“  strait  is  the  gate  and  narewe  is  the  waye.” 

Although  Wyclif  was  a  recognized  scholar  of 
his  day,  Master  of  Baliol  College,  Oxford,  he 
could  read  neither  Hebrew  nor  Greek.  He  trans¬ 
lated  the  Bible  from  the  Latin.  The  original 
sources,  Greek  and  Hebrew,  were  not  consulted. 
All  the  errors  and  corruptions  in  the  Vulgate 
were  necessarily  passed  over  into  the  English. 
Much  of  the  ecclesiastical  language  was  retained, 
as  “  penance  ”  for  “repentance,”  and  “  priest  ” 
for  “  elder.”  In  spite  of  these  defects,  his  work 
was  creative.  He  gave  the  English  people  the 
Bible  for  the  first  time  in  their  tongue  and  with 
Chaucer  helped  to  mold  the  English  language. 

Wyclif  was  sixty  years  of  age  when  he  com¬ 
pleted  his  work.  For  over  a  quarter  of  a  century 
he  had  labored.  Social  and  religious  conditions 

[52] 


SUPREMACY  OF  ENGLISH  CIVILIZATION 


inspired  him  to  the  task.  The  country  was  de¬ 
pressed  by  reason  of  famine  and  plague.  War 
had  left  its  trail  of  sorrow.  Ignorance  and  super¬ 
stition  were  rife.  The  rise  of  the  new  learning 
made  the  picture  darker.  The  clergy,  for  the 
most  part,  were  poorly  educated.  The  higher 
prelates,  rich  and  ambitious  politically,  held  aloof 
from  the  “  poor  parson.”  Bitter  hatred  sepa¬ 
rated  the  secular  from  the  regular  clergy.  Rival 
papal  courts  were  set  up  at  Avignon  and  Rome. 
Rival  popes  were  hurling  anathemas  at  one  an¬ 
other.  To  the  Kings  of  France,  during  the 
Babylonian  Captivity  (1309-1377),  the  popes 
were  subservient.  To  the  peoples  looking  up  to 
them,  they  were  recreant.  To  keep  up  their  luxu¬ 
rious  and  shameful  courts,  the  popes  gave  way  to 
a  spirit  of  greed  and  extortion.  Foreign  priests 
were  thrust  into  English  livings  to  secure  the 
revenues.  Taxes  were  levied.  Pardons,  dispen¬ 
sations,  and  indulgences  were  put  up  for  sale. 

From  his  seat  at  Oxford,  Wyclif  sent  forth  his 
protest  against  the  worldly  priests  and  extortion¬ 
ate  friars.  The  University  was  stirred.  Efforts 
were  made  to  suppress  his  work  by  ecclesiastical 
trials  and  papal  bulls,  but  in  vain.  King  Edward 
III  protected  him  in  his  cause  against  papal  ag¬ 
gression.  Wyclif  became  the  “  morning  star  of 
the  Reformation,”  “  the  Reformer  before  the 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


Reformation.”  By  sermon  and  pamphlet,  he 
spread  the  demand  for  a  pure  religion.  By  heroic 
zeal,  he  organized  a  company  of  “  poor  priests  ” 
and  sent  them  over  the  country  preaching  the 
gospel. 

Necessity  produces  coalitions.  Priests  and 
friars  were  driven  together.  Prelate  and  king 
came  to  an  understanding  over  the  spoils  of  eccle¬ 
siastical  patronage.  King  Henry  V  “knew  not 
Joseph  ”  as  did  King  Edward  III.  With  king, 
primate,  priest,  and  friar  against  him,  Wyclif  and 
his  Lollards  were  driven  from  Oxford. 

With  the  death  of  religious  freedom,  all  trace  of  intel¬ 
lectual  life  suddenly  disappears.  The  century  which  fol¬ 
lowed  the  triumph  of  Courtney  is  the  most  barren  in  its 
annals.  Nor  was  the  sleep  of  the  University  broken  till 
the  advent  of  the  New  Learning  restored  it  to  some  of  the 
life  and  liberty  which  the  Primate  had  so  roughly  trodden 
out. 2 

The  primary  cause  of  the  opposition  to  Wyclif 
was  his  rejection  of  the  doctrine  of  transubstan- 
tiation  and  his  denunciation  of  money-gathering 
monks  and  the  presumptuous  claims  of  popes. 

“If  there  were  one  hundred  popes,  and  all  the  friars  were 
turned  into  Cardinals,”  said  he,  “  their  opinion  ought  not 
to  be  acceded  to  in  matters  of  faith  except  in  so  far  as 
they  base  themselves  on  Scripture.”  3 

2  Green,  “Hist,  of  Eng.  People,”  p.  241. 

3  Newman,  “  Ch.  Hist.,”  Vol.  I,  p.  607. 

[54] 


SUPREMACY  OF  ENGLISH  CIVILIZATION 


Brought  to  trial  time  and  again,  he  was  finally 
condemned  at  Oxford  in  1381.  A  year  later 
twenty-four  propositions  of  Wyclif  were  declared 
heretical. 

Undaunted  by  circumstances,  the  brave  soul 
toiled  on  in  the  work  of  giving  the  Bible  to  the 
people.  Nicholas  Herford  and  John  Purvey  as¬ 
sisted  him  in  the  Old  Testament.  Not  even  the 
Pope  could  stay  the  work.  Summoned  to  Rome, 
Wyclif  replied  by  counseling  “  that  the  Pope 
should  surrender  all  temporal  authority  to  the 
civil  power  and  advise  his  clergy  to  do  the  same.” 
On  December  30,  1384,  while  hearing  mass  in  the 
parish  church  at  Lutterworth,  he  was  stricken 
with  paralysis.  The  following  day,  the  last  in  the 
old  year,  Wyclif  “  rested  from  his  labors.” 

Great  souls  are  unconquerable.  Wyclif  was  a 
great  soul.  Like  Jerome  he  had  been  denounced 
for  his  Bible  translation.  Knighton  wrote  in 
melancholy  wail,  “  Thus  the  pearl  of  the  Church 
is  turned  into  the  common  sport  of  the  people.” 
Jerome  had  been  accused  of  “  tampering  with  our 
Lord’s  own  words  and  denying  the  inspiration  of 
the  Scriptures.”  Archbishop  Arundel  savagely 
complained  to  the  pope  of 

that  pestilent  wretch,  John  Wyclif,  the  son  of  the  old  ser¬ 
pent,  the  forerunner  of  Antichrist,  who  had  completed  his 
iniquity  by  inventing  a  new  translation  of  the  Scriptures. 

[55] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


The  desperation  of  ecclesiasticism  is  revealed 
in  the  action  of  the  Convocation  at  Oxford,  1408 : 

We  decree  and  ordain  that  no  man  hereafter  by  his  own 
authority  translate  any  text  of  Scripture  into  English,  or 
any  other  tongue,  by  way  of  a  book,  pamphlet,  or  treatise 
now  lately  composed  in  the  time  of  John  Wyclif — until  the 
said  translation  be  approved  by  the  ordinary  of  the  place. 

The  bitterness  of  the  friars  against  Wyclif 
could  not  be  restrained  even  after  his  death.  It 
shocks  us  now  to  read  the  record  of  such  actions. 
An  appeal  was  carried  to  the  Pope  to  have  the 
body  of  Wyclif  removed  from  consecrated 
ground  and  buried  in  a  dung-hill.  To  the  honor 
of  the  Pope  the  appeal  was  refused.  But  thirty 
years  later,  the  Council  of  Constance,  that  Coun¬ 
cil  which  murdered  John  Huss,  “  ordered  his  re¬ 
mains  to  be  taken  up  and  cast  out.” 

Accordingly,  in  1428,  the  shameful  deed  was 
done.  Wyclif’s  body  was  dug  up  and  burned. 
The  ashes  were  scattered  on  the  river  near  the 
little  church  he  served  at  Lutterworth.  No  harm 
was  done  to  Wyclif  or  to  his  memory  by  this  in¬ 
human  act.  Nor  did  any  honor  accrue  to  the  in¬ 
stigators  of  the  shame.  But  the  scattered  ashes 
were  carried  to  the  sea  and  symbolized  the  scat¬ 
tering  throughout  the  world  of  those  ideals  for 
which  Wyclif  lived  and  died.  John  Huss  of  Bo¬ 
hemia  caught  up  the  spirit  of  Wyclif  and  bore 

[56] 


SUPREMACY  OF  ENGLISH  CIVILIZATION 


witness :  “  I  am  content  that  my  soul  should  be 
where  his  soul  is.” 

The  “  morning  star  of  the  Reformation  ”  had 
not  shined  in  vain.  Manuscripts  of  his  Bible 
were  eagerly  sought  by  the  people.  A  few  years 
after  his  death  copies  of  the  Scriptures  brought 
$150  to  $200,  and  a  load  of  hay  was  given  for  a 
“  few  chapters  of  St.  James  or  St.  Paul.”  Later 
on  readers  of  Wyclif’s  Bible  were  burned  at  the 
stake  with  copies  of  the  Bible  round  their  necks 
and  his  followers  were  “  hunted  like  partridges 
over  the  mountains.”  Truly  the  ideal  of  Wyclif 
set  forth  as  a  prayer  in  the  preface  of  his  Bible 
found  fulfilment : 

God  grant  us  to  ken  and  to  kepe  well  holie  writ,  and  to 
suffer  joiefulli  some  paine  for  it  at  the  laste. 

The  next  step  in  Bible  history  is  preceded  by 
influences  that  were  destined  to  change  human 
ideals.  Between  the  day  that  John  Wyclif  turned 
the  Bible  stream  from  the  Latin  (purple)  into 
the  English  (blue)  and  the  day  that  William  Tyn- 
dale  opened  a  channel  for  the  flow  of  the  original 
streams  of  Divine  experience  (black,  yellow, 
red)  into  the  English,  great  events  were  to  take 
place. 

Between  Wyclif’s  English  Bible  (1382)  and 
Tyndale’s  Bible  (1535),  the  world  witnessed  the 

[57] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


birth  of  a  new  order.  Old  things  passed  away. 
Columbus  (1492)  made  the  world  new.  Coper¬ 
nicus  (1530)  conceived  a  new  universe.  Guten¬ 
berg  (1452)  opened  the  way  to  popular  educa¬ 
tion  by  means  of  the  printing-press.  And  the 
Seljukian  Turks  (1453),  by  the  capture  of  Con¬ 
stantinople,  drove  the  Greek  scholars  all  over 
Europe.  The  effect  of  this  last  was  electric.  It 
was  like  the  conversion  of  Constantine  which 
opened  .the  way  for  Christianity  to  rise  into 
power.  It  resembled  the  influence  of  the  Greek 
language  following  in  the  wake  of  the  conquering 
armies  of  Alexander  the  Great. 

The  Greek  scholars  from  the  East  brought  with 
them  the  Greek  language  and  the  Greek  literature. 
Men  began  to  restudy  the  classics.  Hebrew  and 
Greek  awoke  as  from  a  sleep.  Universities  were 
affected.  Grocyn  and  Linacre  were  at  Oxford. 
Erasmus  brought  the  inspiration  to  Cambridge. 
Out  of  the  rebirth  of  the  classics  came  the  Renais¬ 
sance.  And  out  of  that  great  intellectual  awaken¬ 
ing  arose  the  Protestant  Reformation.  Then 
came  the  birth  of  the  Bible  from  the  Hebrew  and 
Greek  originals.  Luther  and  Tyndale  and  a  suc¬ 
cession  of  noble  scholars  consecrated  themselves 
to  this  task. 

For  this  awakened  scholarship,  this  revival  of 
interest  in  the  Hebrew  and  the  Greek,  the  print- 

[58] 


SUPREMACY  OF  ENGLISH  CIVILIZATION 


ing-press  proved  a  splendid  ally.  As  the  presses 
multiplied,  their  products  scattered.  The  Bible 
shared  in  the  blessing.  Three  years  after  the  first 
presses  were  set  up  (1452),  the  Latin  Vulgate 
appeared  for  the  first  time  in  printed  form  (1455). 
Thirty-three  years  later  (1488),  the  Hebrew 
Old  Testament  was  issued.  Luther  availed  him¬ 
self  of  this  blessing.  The  Greek  New  Testament 
of  Erasmus  followed  in  1516  and  1521.  Then  in 
1522,  there  came  from  the  press  that  great  work 
of  Cardinal  Ximenes,  the  Complutensian  Poly¬ 
glot,  giving  the  Hebrew,  Greek,  Latin,  and  Chal¬ 
dee  paraphrase  in  parallel  columns  as  Origen  had 
done  previously.  The  Textus  Receptus,  the  most 
influential  Greek  text  of  the  New  Testament  of 
that  day,  appeared  in  1624  and  1633. 

The  times  were  alive,  but  religion  was  “  almost 
extinct.”  Cardinal  Bellarmine  confessed  that 

some  years  before  the  rise  of  the  Lutheran  heresy,  there 
was  almost  an  entire  abandonment  of  equity  in  ecclesias¬ 
tical  judgments;  in  morals,  no  discipline;  in  sacred  litera¬ 
ture,  no  erudition ;  in  divine  things,  no  reverence ;  religion 
was  almost  extinct. 

Erasmus  exclaimed,  “  What  man  of  real  piety 
does  not  perceive  with  sighs  that  this  is  far  the 
most  corrupt  of  all  ages?  ”  The  times  were  ripe 
for  the  appearance  of  prophets  of  a  new  day. 
Their  advent  was  at  hand. 


[59] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


ii 

One  hundred  years  after  the  death  of  Wyclif, 
eight  years  before  the  discovery  of  America,  the 
same  year  that  Martin  Luther  was  born  in  Eisle- 
ben,  Germany,  William  Tyndale  was  born  in 
Glostershire,  England.  About  the  time  (1516) 
Luther  was  nailing  his  theses  to  the  church  door 
at  Wittenberg  and  burning  the  papal  bull,  Tyn¬ 
dale  was  being  prepared  for  his  mission  and 
stirred  into  protest  against  religious  evils  at  Ox¬ 
ford  and  Cambridge.  While  Luther  (1522)  was 
giving  the  German  people  the  New  Testament  in 
their  own  tongue,  Tyndale  was  telling  the  priests 
of  England, 

If  God  spares  my  life,  ere  many  years,  I  will  cause  the 
boy  who  driveth  the  plough  to  know  more  of  the  Scriptures 
than  you  do. 

Fired  with  zeal,  Tyndale  journeyed  to  London 
and  besought  Bishop  Tunstal  to  permit  him  to 
translate  the  New  Testament  into  English.  The 
need  of  such  a  work  was  great.  Many  priests 
were  unable  to  recite  the  Ten  Commandments  or 
to  repeat  the  Lord’s  Prayer.  Tyndale  felt  shamed 
and  humiliated  by  such  a  situation  and  wrote  in 
appeal, 

If  you  will  not  let  the  layman  have  the  Word  of  God  in 
his  mother  tongue,  yet  let  the  priests  have  it,  which  for  the 

[60] 


SUPREMACY  OF  ENGLISH  CIVILIZATION 


great  part  of  them  do  understand  no  Latin  at  all,  but  sing 
and  patter  all  day  with  the  lips  only  that  which  the  heart 
understandeth  not. 

The  Bishop,  however,  was  blind  to  the  deep  need 
of  the  hour.  Tyndale  soon  perceived 

not  only  that  there  was  no  rowme  in  my  lorde  of  londons 
palace  to  translate  the  new  testament  but  also  that  there 
was  no  place  to  do  it  in  all  englonde. 

That  the  Bible  might  be  born  in  English,  Tyn¬ 
dale  went  into  exile.  He  accomplished  his  pur¬ 
pose.  The  Bible  was  born,  but  it  cost  Tyndale  his 
life.  *From  London,  he  went  to  Hamburg  in 
1524  and  from  thence  to  Cologne  in  1525.  While 
here  Cochleus,  deacon  of  the  Church  of  the 
Blessed  Virgin  at  Frankfort,  discovered  the 
secret  by  making  the  printers  drunk.  Cochleus 
exposed  the  enterprise  and  roused  the  authorities 
to  opposition.  He  also  wrote  letters  of  warning 
to  the  King  of  England,  Cardinal  Wolsey,  and 
Bishop  Fisher  urging  them  to  “  prevent  the  im¬ 
portation  of  the  pernicious  merchandise.” 

Discovered,  Tyndale  fled  in  haste  with  his 
printed  sheets  of  the  New  Testament  to  Worms. 
Four  years  before  (1521)  in  this  very  city,  Mar¬ 
tin  Luther  had  defied  the  Council  appointed  to 
try  him.  Now  Tyndale,  in  defiance  of  English 
ecclesiasticism  and  inquisition,  entered  into  the 
same  city  to  complete  the  printing  of  the  first 

F  [6l  ] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


New  Testament  in  English.  To  escape  detection, 
the  new  translation  of  the  New  Testament  was 
sent  to  England  concealed  in  cases,  barrels,  bales 
of  cloth,  and  sacks  of  flour. 

Lee,  afterward  Archbishop  of  York,  learned  of 
the  fact  while  traveling  on  the  Continent  and 
wrote  to  Henry  VIII : 

I  need  not  to  advise  your  grace  what  infection  may  ensue 
hereby  if  it  be  not  withstanded.  All  our  forefathers,  gover¬ 
nors  of  the  Church  of  England,  have  with  all  diligence  for¬ 
bid  and  eschewed  publication  of  English  Bibles. 

Ports  were  guarded.  Hundreds  of  copies  were 
seized  and  burned  at  the  old  Cross  of  St.  Paul’s, 
as  a  “  burnt  offering  most  pleasing  to  Almighty 
God.” 

A  happy  idea  occurred  to  Tunstal,  Bishop  of 
London.  He  would  buy  up  the  whole  edition  of 
Tyndale  and  burn  it.  Accordingly  through  a 
merchant  trading  at  Antwerp,  he  arranged  the 
deal.  The  books  were  secured.  A  public  burning 
was  held  at  St.  Paul’s  Cathedral,  London,  En¬ 
gland.  Cardinal  Wolsey,  clad  in  purple,  was  sur¬ 
rounded  by  abbots,  friars  and  bishops.  Fisher, 
Bishop  of  Rochester,  preached,  denouncing 
Luther  and  his  heresy.  Then  was  kindled  a  great 
fire  with  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  which 
Tyndale  had  translated  into  English. 

This  was  in  1526.  With  the  money  thus  se- 

[62] 


SUPREMACY  OF  ENGLISH  CIVILIZATION 


cured  Tyndale  brought  out  corrected  editions. 
In  spite  of  burnings  and  warnings  copies  of  the 
New  Testament  were  multiplied  and  eagerly 
sought  by  the  people.  Bishop  Nikke  wrote  de¬ 
spairingly  to  the  Primate,  “  It  passeth  my  power 
or  that  of  any  spiritual  man  to  hinder  it  now.” 

In  1528  Tyndale  turned  his  attention  to  the 
Old  Testament.  First  in  Marburg,  then  at  Ant¬ 
werp,  he  labored.  In  1534-35  revised  editions 
of  the  New  Testament  and  the  Old  Testament 
as  far  as  Jonah  appeared.  Chapter-headings  and 
marginal  notes  were  added. 

For  the  first  time  in  Christian  history,  the  orig¬ 
inal  streams  of  Divine  experience  were  brought 
together  and  turned  into  the  English.  In  1534 
Luther  had  translated  the  entire  Bible  from  the 
Greek  and  Hebrew  into  German.  By  so  doing, 
he  made  the  German  language.  What  Luther  did 
by  means  of  the  Bible  for  the  German  language 
that  Tyndale  did  for  the  English.  He  “  fixed  our 
standard  English  once  for  all  and  brought  it 
finally  into  every  home.” 

It  was  surely  a  most  lucky  accident  for  the  young  re¬ 
ligion  [said  Cardinal  Newman]  that  while  the  English 
language  was  coming  to  the  birth  with  its  special  attributes 
of  nerve,  sympathy,  and  vigor  at  its  very  first  breathings, 
Protestantism  was  at  hand  to  form  it  upon  its  own  theo¬ 
logical  Patois,  and  to  educate  it  as  the  mouthpiece  of  its 
tradition.  .  .  The  new  religion  employed  the  new  language 

[63] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


for  its  purposes,  in  a  great  undertaking,  the  translation  of 
its  own  Bible;  a  work  which  by  the  purity  of  its  diction  and 
the  strength  and  harmony  of  its  style,  has  deservedly  be¬ 
come  the  very  model  of  good  English,  and  the  standard 
of  the  language  to  all  future  time. 

And  Froude  has  said: 

The  peculiar  genius  which  breathes  through  it,  the  min¬ 
gled  tenderness  and  majesty,  the  Saxon  simplicity,  the  pre¬ 
ternatural  grandeur,  unequalled,  unapproached,  in  the  at¬ 
tempted  improvements  of  modern  scholars,  all  are  here 
and  bear  the  impress  of  the  mind  of  one  man — William 
Tyndale. 

The  reward  of  such  an  achievement  should 
have  been  the  highest  honor  to  the  man  and  the 
encouragement  of  the  enterprise  by  the  most  gen¬ 
erous  assistance.  Instead,  we  find  enemies  in  high 
places  plotting  against  him.  Vaughan,  the  royal 
envoy,  was  instructed  to  persuade  Tyndale  to  re¬ 
turn  to  England.  Remembering  the  blush  of 
Sigismund  in  the  presence  of  John  Huss,  William 
Tyndale  refused,  saying, 

Whatever  promises  of  safety  may  be  made,  the  King 
would  never  be  able  to  protect  me  from  the  Bishops,  who 
believe  that  no  faith  should  be  kept  with  heretics. 

A  clergyman  by  the  name  of  Phillips  finally 
accomplished  the  downfall  of  Tyndale.  Ferret¬ 
ing  his  way  into  the  confidence  of  Tyndale,  he  be¬ 
trayed  him  into  the  hands  of  the  authorities  of 

[64] 


SUPREMACY  OF  ENGLISH  CIVILIZATION 


Antwerp.  Before  doing  so,  the  traitor  borrowed 
forty  shillings  from  his  intended  victim. 

Once  in  the  clutches  of  the  Inquisitors,  Tyndale 
was  thrust  into  the  cold,  damp  dungeon  of  the 
Castle  of  Vilvorden.  After  thirteen  years  of 
faithful  toil  for  humanity,  this  noble  soul  was 
kept  in  misery  for  sixteen  months.  His  appeal 
to  the  governor  for  humane  treatment  is  so  pitiful 
as  to  cause  wonder  that  any  man  could  have 
turned  a  deaf  ear.  Only  one  whose  humanity 
had  been  deadened  by  inhuman  religious  ideals 
could  have  refused. 

I  beg  your  lordship  and  that  by  the  Lord  Jesus  [wrote 
Tyndale],  if  I  am  to  remain  here  during  the  winter,  you 
will  request  the  procurer  to  be  kind  enough  to  send  me 
from  my  goods  which  he  has  in  his  possession  a  warmer 
cap,  for  I  suffer  extremely  from  a  perpetual  catarrh,  which 
is  much  increased  by  this  cell.  A  warmer  coat  also,  for 
that  which  I  have  is  very  thin;  also  a  piece  of  cloth  to 
patch  my  leggins — my  shirts  too  are  worn  out — also  that  he 
would  suffer  me  to  have  my  Hebrew  Bible  and  Grammar 
and  Dictionary. 

In  that  same  country,  Belgium,  and  not  far 
from  the  same  spot  where  Edith  Cavell,  an  En¬ 
glish  nurse,  October  12,  1915,  appealed  in  vain  to 
a  heartless  Hun  for  mercy,  William  Tyndale, 
three  hundred  and  seventy-nine  years  before,  ap¬ 
pealed  in  vain  to  the  heartless  inquisitors  of  a 
heartless  religion. 


[65! 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


On  Friday,  October  6,  1536,  Tyndale  was 
brought  forth  from  his  dungeon,  tied  to  a  stake, 
strangled  to  death,  and  his  body  was  burned 
to  ashes.  It  is  recorded  of  the  first  Christian 
martyr,  Stephen,  that  as  the  stones  beat  upon  him, 
“  he  kneeled  down,  and  cried  with  a  loud  voice, 
‘  Lord,  lay  not  this  sin  to  their  charge.’  ”  When 
this  first  martyr  for  an  open  Bible  in  the  English 
tongue  was  being  strangled  to  death  in  exile,  this 
prayer  burst  from  his  lips,  “  Lord,  open  the  King 
of  England’s  eyes.” 


hi 

God  answered  that  prayer  of  Tyndale  in  a 
larger  way  than  Tyndale  dreamed.  European 
Christianity  was  now  fully  engaged  in  that  great 
war  over  God  and  the  Book.  The  tyranny  of 
religious  absolutism  became  unendurable.  En¬ 
gland  drove  the  hireling  foreign  priests  from  her 
borders  and  declared  her  independence  of  Rome. 

The  torch  lighted  by  the  body  of  Tyndale  illu¬ 
minated  the  night  of  ignorance  and  bigotry  and 
enabled  the  people  to  read  the  truth  of  liberty  in 
the  heavens.  Persecutions  on  the  part  of  Papists 
and  Protestants  were  in  vain.  Tyndale’s  prophecy 
that  the  day  would  come  when  the  plowboy 
should  know  more  of  the  Scriptures  than  the 
ignorant  priests  was  fulfilled.  The  protest  of 

[66] 


SUPREMACY  OF  ENGLISH  CIVILIZATION 


Erasmus  had  become  the  protest  of  the  common 
people : 

I  utterly  dissent  from  those  who  are  unwilling  that  the 
Sacred  Scriptures  should  be  read  by  the  unlearned,  trans¬ 
lated  into  their  vulgar  tongue,  as  though  Christ  had  taught 
such  subtleties  that  they  can  scarcely  be  understood  even 
by  a  few  theologians,  or  as  though  the  strength  of  the 
Christian  religion  consisted  in  men’s  ignorance  of  it. 

As  a  result,  England  was  literally  filled  with 
Bibles.  This 

wide-spread  enthusiasm  for  the  translation  of  the  Bible 
indicated  that  the  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures  was  to  be 
no  longer  a  monopoly  of  the  priesthood. 4 


One  year  before  they  strangled  Tyndale  and 
burned  his  body  at  the  stake,  Miles  Coverdale, 
October  4,  1535,  issued  the  first  complete  English 
Bible.  It  was  taken  from  the  Latin  and  German 
with  the  aid  of  “  five  sundry  interpreters.”  There 
were  no  notes,  chapter-headings,  or  division  into 
verses,  but  it  contained  the  Apocrypha  as  found 
in  the  Vulgate.  The  New  Testament  showed  the 
influence  of  Tyndale. 

Within  three  years  following  the  martyrdom 
of  Tyndale,  three  separate  versions  of  the  Bible 
were  issued  in  English.  The  first  was  Matthew’s 
Bible,  which  appeared  in  1537.  It  was  a  com- 

4  Nash,  “  Hist,  of  Higher  Criticism,”  p.  66. 

[67] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


bination  of  the  New  Testament  and  Pentateuch 
by  Tyndale  with  the  remaining  part  of  the  Old 
Testament  and  Apocrypha  by  Coverdale.  Mar¬ 
ginal  notes  were  included.  At  the  request  of 
Archbishop  Cranmer  and  under  Crom well’s  in¬ 
fluence,  Henry  VIII,  granted  permission  for  its 
publication  and  sale.  Cranmer  liked  it  “  better 
than  any  other  translation  heretofore  made.” 

Thus  one  year  after  Tyndale’s  execution,  Mat¬ 
thew’s  Bible  was  recognized  by  the  King  and  be¬ 
came  the  first  authorized  English  Bible.  Within 
two  years  more,  1539,  Taverner’s  Bible  and  the 
Great  Bible  appeared.  Taverner’s  Bible  was  the 
work  of  a  layman.  It  was  little  more  than  a  re¬ 
vision  of  Matthew’s  Bible,  which  was  a  combina¬ 
tion  of  Tyndale  and  Coverdale. 

The  Great  Bible  was  born  at  the  instance  of 
King  and  Bishops.  Seven  editions  were  issued 
without  notes.  It  had  been  designed  to  issue  it 
from  the  press  in  Paris.  Coverdale  was  entrusted 
with  the  mission.  Munster’s  Hebrew-Latin  Old 
Testament,  the  Complutensian  Polyglot,  and 
Erasmus’  Latin  New  Testament  were  at  his  com¬ 
mand.  He  had  almost  completed  the  task  when 
the  Inquisitor-General  of  France  interposed. 
Coverdale  escaped  the  fate  of  Tyndale  by  fleeing 
with  his  printers  and  equipment  to  England 
where  the  work  was  completed,  April,  1539. 

[68] 


SUPREMACY  OF  ENGLISH  CIVILIZATION 


Thus  the  Great  Bible,  in  large  part  a  reproduc¬ 
tion  of  Tyndale’s  through  Matthew’s,  became  the 
second  authorized  English  version.  A  copy  was 
ordered  set  up  in  every  parish  church.  Chained 
to  the  pulpits,  the  martyr’s  work  bore  the  name 
and  commanded  the  reverence  of  that  same 
Bishop,  Tunstal,  who  had  turned  Tyndale  from 
his  door,  bought  up  his  books,  and  burned  them 
before  St.  Paul’s.  The  Great  Bible  has  left  its 
impress  upon  the  prayer-book.  The  Psalms  con¬ 
tained  therein  are  taken  largely  from  it.  In  the 
first  edition  the  Apocrypha  are  called  Hagio- 
grapha.  Later  editions  classified  them  as  “  The 
fourth  part  of  the  Bible.” 

Troublous  times  were  immediately  ahead. 
King  and  Bishops  had  a  change  of  heart.  Tun¬ 
stal  and  Heath  disavowed  their  part  in  the  work 
of  revision  of  the  Great  Bible.  Parliament 
proscribed  the  Bibles  of  Tyndale  and  Coverdale. 
The  notes  in  Matthew’s  Bible  and  Taverner’s 
Bible  were  erased. 

It  was  enacted  that  no  women,  except  those  of 
noble  birth,  and  no  men  below  the  upper  middle 
classes  were  to  read  the  Bible  publicly  or  privately 
to  others  or  by  themselves.  This  was  in  harmony 
with  the  decree  of  the  Council  of  Trent  (1546), 
which  crystallized  the  Catholic  opinion  of  the 
centuries : 


[69] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


If  anyone  shall  have  the  temerity  to  read  or  possess  [the 
Bible]  without  .  .  .  written  permission,  he  shall  not  receive 
absolution  until  he  have  first  delivered  up  such  Bible  to  the 
ordinary. 5 

Tyndale’s  and  Coverdale’s  Bibles  were  burned 
(1546).  Men  fled  to  the  Continent  for  safety. 
The  death  of  Henry  VIII  brought  a  reaction. 
Under  Edward  VI,  1547-1553,  nearly  sixty  edi¬ 
tions  of  the  Scriptures  were  issued.  Then  came 
Queen  Mary.  (1553-1558.)  Archbishop  Cran- 
mer,  who  had  been  largely  responsible  for  the 
Great  Bible,  and  John  Rogers,  the  author  of 
Matthew’s  Bible,  were  burned  at  the  stake.  The 
bones  of  Fagius  and  Bucer  were  dug  up  and 
burned.  Coverdale  escaped  through  the  interven¬ 
tion  of  the  King  of  Denmark. 

The  Geneva  Bible  was  born  out  of  this  agony. 
The  exiles  from  England  gathered  at  Geneva  and 
worked  “  for  ten  years  by  day  and  by  night  ”  on 
this  translation.  Among  them  were  Coverdale 
and  William  Wittingham.  In  1557  the  New  Tes¬ 
tament  appeared  with  an  introduction  by  John 
Calvin.  In  1560  the  Geneva  Bible  complete  with 
copious  notes,  was  published  at  Geneva  and  dedi¬ 
cated  “  to  the  most  virtuous  and  noble  Queen 
Elizabeth,  whom  God  hath  made  our  Zerubbabel 
for  the  erecting  of  this  most  noble  temple.”  It 

6  Fisher,  “  Hist,  of  Reformation,”  p.  530. 

[70] 


SUPREMACY  OF  ENGLISH  CIVILIZATION 


was  a  careful  revision  of  the  Great  Bible  in  the 
Old  Testament  and  of  Tyndale’s  latest  New  Tes¬ 
tament. 

The  Geneva  Bible  was  the  first  English  Bible  to 
be  printed  in  Roman  type,  the  first  to  be  divided 
into  verses,  the  first  to  be  made  handy  in  size  and 
popular  in  price.  Nothing  like  it  appeared  until 
the  Authorized  Bible  of  1611.  Words  not  in 
the  original  were  printed  in  italics.  Following 
Luther’s,  Coverdale’s,  and  the  French  Bible  of 
Calvin  (1535),  the  Apocrypha  were  placed  be¬ 
tween  the  Old  and  New  Testaments. 

For  sixty  years  the  Geneva  Bible  held  the  field, 
only  slowly  yielding  to  the  King  James  version. 
The  name  of  St.  Paul  was  omitted  from  the 
letter  to  the  Hebrews.  “  Love  ”  was  used  in¬ 
stead  of  “  charity  ” ;  “  congregation  ”  instead  of 
“  church.”  In  Genesis  3  :  7  the  word  “  breeches  ” 
was  used  for  “  aprons,”  hence  this  Bible  is  often 
referred  to  as  the  “  Breeches  Bible  ”  just  as  the 
Great  Bible  was  known  as  the  “  Treacle  Bible  ” 
from  the  use  of  the  word  “  treacle  ”  for  “  balm  ” 
in  Jeremiah  8  :  22.  The  Prayer  of  Manasseh, 
which  had  been  excluded  from  Coverdale’s  Bible 
and  inserted  in  Matthew’s,  was  now  placed  be¬ 
tween  Second  Chronicles  and  Ezra  and  not  in  the 
Apocrypha. 

The  Bishops’  Bible  grew  out  of  the  demand  on 

[71] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


the  part  of  the  churchmen  for  a  Bible  that  would 
be  at  once  authoritative  and  popular.  The  Great 
Bible  failed  in  this  respect.  The  Geneva  Bible 
offended  the  churchmen  by  its  notes.  A  bill  was 
passed  “  for  reducing  of  diversities  of  Bibles  now 
extant  in  the  English  tongue  to  one  settled  vulgar 
translated  from  the  original.”  Archbishop 
Parker  and  a  company  of  “  qualified  divines  ” 
labored  for  four  years  upon  the  task.  They  were 
instructed  to  “  make  no  bitter  notes  upon  any 
text  nor  yet  to  set  down  any  determination  in 
places  of  controversy.” 

It  was  called  the  “  Bishops’  Bible  ”  because  of 
the  number  of  bishops  engaged  in  the  revision. 
When  it  was  completed  Convocation  ordered  that 
copies  be  placed  in  halls  or  dining-rooms  of  arch¬ 
bishops  and  bishops  for  the  use  of  their  servants ; 
also  that  cathedrals  and,  as  far  as  possible, 
churches  be  supplied.  No  amount  of  patronage, 
however,  could  exalt  the  Bishops’  Bible.  It  met 
the  ideals  neither  of  High-churchman  nor  of 
Puritan,  and  so  failed  of  its  purpose. 

A  special  feature  of  the  Bishops’  Bible  was  in  a 
separate  title-page  which  read,  “  The  volume  of 
bookes  called  Apocrypha.”  The  order  of  the 
books  followed  the  Vulgate  except  that  First  and 
Second  Maccabees  were  placed  after  Job  and 
Third  and  Fourth  Esdras  were  added.  These 


[72] 


SUPREMACY  OF  ENGLISH  CIVILIZATION 


last  were  not  regarded  as  among  those  “  called 
Apocrypha  ”  but  were  declared  to  be  Apocrypha. 
In  1572  a  map  of  Palestine  was  inserted. 

For  two  hundred  years  Bibles  had  been  pro¬ 
duced  in  the  vulgar  tongue  in  opposition  to  the 
wishes  of  the  Roman  Church.  To  prove  to  the 
world  that  this  Church  was  not  opposed  to  such 
a  procedure,  if  properly  done,  and  that  it  had 
scholars  competent  for  such  a  task,  the  Rhemish 
New  Testament  was  produced  in  1582,  and  the 
Douay  Old  Testament  in  1609.  These  efforts 
were  based  on  the  Clementine  Vulgate  of  1592, 
the  “authentic  text”  according  to  Trent,  “dili¬ 
gently  conferred  with  the  Greeke  and  other  edi¬ 
tions  in  diverse  languages.” 

The  purpose  was  to  make  a  better  Bible  than 
had  been  made  and  not  to  supply  one  for  “  ale- 
benches,  boats,  and  barges.”  In  the  preface, 
Protestants  were  accused  of  “  casting  the  holy  to 
dogs  and  pearls  to  pigs.”  The  notes  were  mark¬ 
edly  controversial ;  the  language  ecclesiastical. 
“  Charity  ”  was  used  for  “  love  ” ;  “  church,”  for 
“  congregation  ” ;  “  penance,”  for  “  repentance  ” ; 
“  chalice,”  for  “  cup.”  In  spite  of  its  exclusive 
purpose  and  origin,  the  influence  of  William  Tyn- 
dale  was  apparent.  No  marginal  readings  were 
inserted,  for  the  translation  was  to  be  as  undi¬ 
vided  in  authority  as  the  Vulgate  itself. 

[73] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


What  now  passes  as  the  Rheims-Douay  Bible 
is  in  reality  not  so  but  a  practically  new  transla¬ 
tion  by  Dr.  Richard  Challoner,  Coadjutor  to  the 
Vicar  Apostolic  of  London  between  1749  and 
1752.  A  Roman  Catholic  authority  says  the 
Douay  Bible  “  never  had  any  episcopal  imprima¬ 
tur,  much  less  any  papal  approbation.”  Cardinal 
Gibbons’  name  appeared  in  an  American  edition 
as  follows: 

We  hereby  approve  of  this  new  edition  of  the  Catholic 
Bible  which  is  an  accurate  reprint  of  the  Rheims  and  Douai 
edition  with  Doctor  Challoner’s  notes  and  accordingly 
commend  it  to  the  faithful. 


The  Apochryphal  books,  Tobit,  Judith,  Wis¬ 
dom,  Ecclesiasticus,  Baruch,  First  and  Second 
Maccabees  together  with  additions  to  Esther  and 
Daniel  are  found  in  the  Douay  because  found  in 
the  Vulgate.  The  Prayer  of  Manasseh  and  First 
and  Second  Esdras  are  omitted. 

The  Rheims-Douay  Bible  was  a  translation  on 
the  basis  of  the  Clementine  Vulgate.  The  first 
attempt  at  translating  the  Bible  into  English 
direct  from  the  original  languages  was  made  in 
1836  by  Dr.  John  Lingard,  the  historian.  In 
1898  another  venture  was  made.  This  time  it 
was  by  an  American  Dominican,  the  Rev.  Francis 
A.  Spencer. 


[74] 


SUPREMACY  OF  ENGLISH  CIVILIZATION 


A  new  English  translation  from  the  originals 
was  begun  in  1913  under  the  title  “  The  West¬ 
minster  Version  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures,”  by 
two  Jesuits  acting  as  general  editors,  the  Rev. 
Cuthbert  Lattey  and  the  Rev.  Joseph  Keating. 
These  editors  declared  their  purpose  to  be  the 
production  of  a 

readable  Bible  .  .  .  one  which  not  only  is  couched  in  digni¬ 
fied  and  accurate  English,  but  which  also  supplies  in  print¬ 
ing  and  arrangement  and  notes  such  aids  to  the  eye  and 
mind  as  will  render  the  intelligent  perusal  of  the  sacred 
text  as  easy  and  pleasant  as  possible. 

The  text  of  Westcott  and  Hort  was  made  the 
basis  of  this  translation  instead  of  the  Vulgate. 
By  way  of  justification,  the  following  apologetic 
appears  in  the  preface : 

Such  a  proceeding  is  in  no  way  contrary  to  any  law  or 
custom  of  the  Church,  which  of  course,  while  decreeing 
that  the  Latin  Vulgate  is  to  be  treated  as  “authentic”  in 
public  lectures,  disputations,  sermons,  and  homilies,  en¬ 
courages  rather  than  hinders  the  study  of  the  original  texts. 

This  readable  “  Westminster  Bible  ”  is  being 
issued  in  separate  book  form.  Several  books  of 
the  New  Testament  have  appeared.  The  editors 
forecasted  the  future  in  the  following  words: 

The  present  publication  is  in  fact  an  experiment,  and 
how  far  the  scheme  is  proceeded  with  must  depend  to  a 
large  extent  upon  its  reception. 

[75] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


It  would  be  a  grand  thing  if  Catholic  scholar¬ 
ship  should  bring  forth  a  New  Revision  in  En¬ 
glish.  Cardinal  Newman’s  criticism  of  the  present 
Rheims-Douay  Bible  is  still  a  challenge  to  the 
scholars  of  Rome.  Challoner’s  revision  of  the 
Old  Testament  “  issues  in  little  short  of  a  new 
translation.”  “  His  version  is  even  nearer  to  the 
Protestant  than  it  is  to  the  Douay.”  8 

Protestant  and  Catholic  alike  are  poorer  in  that 
the  “  great  Cardinal  ”  was  compelled  to  give  up 
his  attempt  at  a  new  revision  because  of  the  oppo¬ 
sition  within  the  Roman  Church.  The  author  of 
“  Lead,  Kindly  Light,”  master  in  the  domain  of 
religion  and  of  literature,  would  have  made  us 
all  his  debtors. 

But  not  only  in  English  have  new  translations 
been  made.  Several  new  translations  from  the 
original  texts  have  appeared  in  France  and  Ger¬ 
many.  The  Crampton  Version  is  regarded  as 
the  best  Catholic  translation  from  the  originals 
in  French.  Since  1911,  in  Germany,  five  separate 
translations  of  the  New  Testament  have  been 
made  from  the  originals.  Only  two  of  these, 
however,  cover  the  entire  New  Testament. 

a  Tracts  Theological  and  Ecclesiastical,  p.  4x6. 


[76] 


HEYSHAMS 

BIBLE  CHART 


EZRA  THE  BIBLE 


THEODORE  HEYSHAM 
COPYRIGHT  1923 


|A14J2 

|TT*iD, 


CANON  CLOSEDl 
A.D. 

|  TALMUDISTS 

300 

MASSORETES 
•  s 

1000 
1500 


24BkS.|  '™-|3g  BKS  +  APOC. 

L.XX  277-132  RC. 


1800 

1900 


ORDER  BKs. 
ORICEN 
HEXAPLA 


NO  APOC. 
MSS.  OEST. 
OLDEST  MS.9I6 
PRINTED  1488 
LUTHER 


TRENT 
1  546 


USHER  1701 


.  AMERICAN 

MTk 


•2-13  CENTURY 
OT.  —  N.T. 

320  A.D. 

ORAL  TRADITION 


QUOTED  N.T. 

ORKS.  ITflLA  LK. WRITTEN  RECORDS 
JEWS  REJECT  S  I  NX  BURNED  303-312 


JESUS  CHRIST 

1 6 


VULCATEAOEAjO^^ 
LfjEROMEWKax"  CANON 


APOCRYPHA 
TEXT  VARIES 
ORK.  CHURCH 
XIMENES 
POLYGLOT 


CAEDMON  700 


jAPOCRYPHAl 
AWYCLIF1382  „| 
BTURKS1453  I**' 
TYNDALE  1525— 1536  Cf 


Clement  vii! 

1592. 

K  i  inT  o 

JRSLM 1672 
ENGLISH 


DOUAY  1609  . 

c=l 


CLOSED 
392  AJX 

I  NO  APOC. 
NOHEBrORK. 
[RASMUS  1516 


I  BKS.  BURNED 

^lAgTYRS 

(ieii_ 

13000  MSS. 


REVI SED  1881  - 1885 

*  — IS  l — * 


STANDARD  .REVISED 

PIUSX&07IN1  5  BIBLES  1HI 


1901 


POLYCARP  69-156 
PAPIAS  Ob-163 
0LDESTHS4lhCENT. 


TRADITIONALISTS 


VATICAN  4-1475 


BEZAE  2-6-1546 
MT.  LK.  JN.  MK. 

EPHRAEM  5161841 

TEXTUAL1STS 

SINAITIC4-18S9 


TOTH  C  6Y  C  €  BCI^C  OACACTClAyTAICM H  T6..,£(|»OBOyN 

MycT  h  pioNoce  itim.iii.i6  fcKeAMBeiceeiilxHTer  totapi-mkxvi&s 


t 


. 


VIII 


THE  ENGLISH  TRIUMVIRATE  BROKEN, 

1611,  A.  D. 

Three  Protestant  Bibles  and  one  Roman  Cath¬ 
olic  Bible  now  held  the  field  and  bade  for  the 
affections  of  the  people.  The  Great  Bible  was 
still  chained  in  many  churches.  The  Geneva 
Bible  had  won  the  mass  of  the  people  and  the 
Bishops’  Bible  appealed  to  most  of  the  Church¬ 
men.  The  Catholics  held  to  the  Douay  Version. 
No  one  was  quite  satisfied.  The  Churchmen  ob¬ 
jected  to  the  partisan  notes  in  the  Geneva  Bible 
and  were  disappointed  in  that  the  two  efforts  on 
the  part  of  the  Church  to  produce  a  Bible  had 
failed  to  win  the  favor  of  the  masses.  The  Puri¬ 
tans  were  in  protest  against  the  Bibles  authorized 
by  King  and  Convocation,  i.  e.,  the  Great  Bible 
and  the  Bishops’  Bible. 

On  January  18,  1604,  James  I  met  the  repre¬ 
sentatives  of  both  sides  at  Hampton  Court.  He 
was  on  his  way  from  Scotland  to  be  crowned 
King.  They  intercepted  him  with  their  troubles. 
Their  troubles  were  not  lightened,  but  a  blessing 
came  out  of  the  conference.  He  gave  the  Puri- 

G  [77] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


tans  to  understand  that  he  would  “  make  them 
conform  or  harry  them  out  of  the  land.”  When 
they  complained  about  the  mistranslations  of 
Scripture  in  the  Prayer-book  and  suggested  the 
need  of  a  new  translation  of  the  Bible,  James 
surprised  the  High-churchmen  by  favoring  such 
a  project. 

Doctor  Reynolds,  President  of  Corpus  Christi 
College,  Oxford,  and  leader  of  the  Puritans, 
urged  a  revision  because  “  those  which  were  al¬ 
lowed  in  the  reigns  of  Kings  Henry  VIII  and 
Edward  VI  were  not  answerable  to  the  truth.” 
Bancroft,  Bishop  of  London  and  leader  of  the 
High  Church  party,  replied,  “  If  every  man’s 
humor  is  to  be  followed,  there  will  be  no  end  of 
translations.”  At  this  the  King  interposed,  say¬ 
ing,  “  I  have  never  yet  seen  a  Bible  well  trans¬ 
lated  into  English  and  the  worst  of  all  transla¬ 
tions  I  have  seen  is  the  Geneva.”  James  hated 
the  Geneva  Bible  because  it  opposed  the  divine 
right  of  kings  in  its  notes. 

A  new  translation  was  ordered  and  the  church¬ 
men  were  made  responsible  for  its  initiative. 
There  was  but  one  restriction :  “  Let  there  be  no 
marginal  notes.”  When  the  churchmen  failed  to 
act  promptly,  the  King  took  up  the  goad.  Fifty- 
four  scholars  were  appointed  for  the  work.  The 
names  of  only  forty-eight  are  recorded.  They 

[78] 


THE  ENGLISH  TRIUMVIRATE  BROKEN 


were  divided  into  six  groups,  and  the  work  was 
apportioned.  Assistance  was  to  be  sought  from 
all  competent  and  available  sources,  men,  manu¬ 
scripts,  versions.  The  Bishops’  Bible  was  to  be 
the  standard.  Old  ecclesiastical  terms  were  to  be 
kept  such  as  “  church  ”  for  “  congregation.” 
Chapters  and  verses  were  to  be  introduced. 

For  six  years  they  toiled  examining  the  He¬ 
brew,  Erasmus’  Greek  Testament,  and  the  Com- 
plutensian  Polyglot  together  with  translations  in 
various  languages,  Spanish,  French,  German, 
Italian.  The  Latin  Vulgate  had  its  influence  as 
did  the  Rheims-Douay  Version.  And  the  spirit 
of  William  Tyndale  hovered  over  all.  It  is  said 
that  eighty  per  cent,  of  the  Old  Testament  and 
ninety  per  cent,  of  the  New  Testament  are  from 
Tyndale’s  translation. 

Three  years  were  spent  in  the  new  translation ; 
then  three  years  in  its  revision  and  marginal  ref¬ 
erences  ;  then  a  committee  reviewed  the  whole  in 
six  months  and  put  it  through  the  press  in  1611. 
For  this  consecrated  labor  they  received  no  com¬ 
pensation  above  their  expenses. 

The  King  James  Bible  was  the  product  of  no 
school  or  sect  or  party  but  the  combined  effort  of 
the  best  in  all.  It  went  forth  with  the  patronage 
of  King,  bishops,  and  scholars.  On  the  title-page 
appeared  the  inscription,  “  Appointed  to  be  read 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


in  the  churches.”  There  is  no  record,  however, 
that  it  was  ever  4 4  publicly  sanctioned  by  convo¬ 
cation,  or  by  Parliament,  or  by  the  Privy  Coun¬ 
cil,  or  by  the  King.” 

Bishop  Lloyd  in  1701  placed  the  chronology  of 
Archbishop  Usher  in  the  margin  of  the  Author¬ 
ized  Version. 

Like  all  preceding  efforts,  the  Authorized  Ver¬ 
sion  of  1611  ran  the  gauntlet  of  condemnation 
and  criticism.  It  had  to  win  its  way  on  merit. 
The  Geneva  Bible  yielded  to  its  rival  only  slowly 
through  a  period  of  about  fifty  years.  Now  for 
over  three  hundred  years  the  Authorized  Version 
has  commanded  the  increasing  regard  and  affec¬ 
tion  of  the  English-speaking  people.  It  is  still 
supreme  in  the  affection  of  the  masses. 

The  tribute  of  the  Roman  Catholic,  Faber,  is 
worthy  of  remembrance : 

It  lives  on  the  ear  like  music  that  can  never  be  forgot¬ 
ten;  like  the  sound  of  church-bells.  Its  felicities  often 
seem  to  be  things  rather  than  words.  It  is  part  of  the 
national  mind,  and  the  anchor  of  national  seriousness. 

Controversies  were  eliminated  by  translitera¬ 
tion  as  in  the  case  of  the  word  44  baptize  ”  and 
44  Jehovah  ”  or  44  Lord.”  The  disputes  of  the 
present  over  the  Hebrew  44  Sheol  ”  and  Greek 
44  Hades  ”  for  the  English  44  hell  ”  had  not  arisen. 
Words  not  in  the  Hebrew  were  italicized.  Doubt- 


[80] 


THE  ENGLISH  TRIUMVIRATE  BROKEN 


ful  readings  were  put  in  the  margin,  thus  elim¬ 
inating  any  claim  to  infallibility  of  the  text. 
Throughout  the  whole  work,  the  common  people 
are  held  in  mind  and  their  language  is  employed. 

The  translators  set  forth  their  purpose  in  the 
Preface : 

Truly,  good  Christian  reader,  we  never  thought  from 
the  beginning  that  we  should  need  to  make  a  new  transla¬ 
tion,  nor  yet  to  make  a  bad  one  a  good  one,  but  to  make 
a  good  one  better. 

Judged  by  their  resources  they  have  merited 
high  praise.  Few  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  were  available  and  these  of  late  date.  With 
the  exception  of  the  Psalms  and  a  part  of  Job, 
the  section  of  the  Old  Testament,  i  Chronicles 
to  Ecclesiastes,  has  not  the  merit  of  the  rest. 

Two  notable  additions  of  1611  are  known  as 
the  “  Great  He  Bible  ”  and  the  “  Great  She 
Bible.”  One  translates  Ruth  3  :  15,  “  he  went  ” 
and  the  other,  “she  went.”  The  printer  of  the 
edition  of  1631  was  fined  £3 00  for  omitting 
“  not  ”  from  the  Seventh  Commandment.  In 
1716  an  edition  appeared  known  as  the  “  Vinegar 
Bible.”  “  Vineyard  ”  was  translated  “  vinegar  ” 
in  the  headline  of  Luke,  chapter  twenty.  Many 
changes  crept  in  through  the  centuries.  In  1851, 
the  American  Bible  Society  found  24,000  varia¬ 
tions  in  six  different  editions. 


[81] 


IX 


NECESSITY  OF  MODERN  REVISIONS 

The  question  is  often  asked,  If  the  King  James 
Bible  possesses  such  merits,  why  was  it  necessary 
to  have  an  English  Revised  and  an  American 
Standard  Revised  Version?  It  is  hard  for  the 
great  body  of  the  laity  as  well  as  a  large  company 
of  the  clergy  to  understand  the  reason  for  what 
they  deem  an  unsettlement  of  their  faith  as  well 
as  an  affront  to  the  Scriptures.  “  The  King 
James  Bible  has  stood  the  test  for  three  hundred 
years.  We  are  satisfied  to  have  it  continue  the 
center  of  our  affections  and  hopes,”  is  their  as¬ 
sumed  attitude.  Not  infrequently  they  manifest 
an  air  of  impatience  and  say,  “  Let  us  alone  in  our 
faith,  and  let  the  Old  Book  alone !  ” 

Now  it  is  helpful  to  know  that  the  reasons 
which  led  to  the  present  Revised  Versions,  were 
the  same  in  part  as  those  which  led  to  the  King 
James  Version  itself.  New  translations  had 
been  made.  Many  Bibles  were  seeking  for  the 
favor  of  the  people.  The  need  of  one  standard 
of  authority  freed  from  the  misunderstandings 
and  inaccuracies  of  the  Authorized  Version  was 


[82] 


NECESSITY  OF  MODERN  REVISIONS 


keenly  felt.  Then  too  a  large  number  of  typo¬ 
graphical  errors  had  been  corrected  and  changes 
deliberately  made  in  the  text  of  the  King  James 
Bible.  And  as  Doctor  Scrivener  has  said,  these 
had  been  “  introduced  silently  and  without  au¬ 
thority  by  men  whose  very  names  are  often  un¬ 
known.” 

The  causes  leading  to  this  result  were  normal 
and  natural.  There  was  nothing  forced.  In  the 
first  place,  language  is  a  growing  thing.  Words 
change  their  meanings.  Scripture  that  was  per¬ 
fectly  clear  to  a  past  age  became  either  obscure 
or  totally  misunderstood  in  the  present. 

Who  but  an  expert  in  language  could  under¬ 
stand  the  meaning  of  that  familiar  text  in  the 
King  James  Bible,  “  Take  no  thought  for  the 
morrow”  (Matt.  6  :  31)?  How  many  knew 
that  the  word  “  thought  ”  formerly  meant  “  anx¬ 
iety”?  Now  the  Revisers  have  made  this  text 
plain  in  the  translation,  “  Be  not  anxious  for  the 
morrow.”  In  like  manner  the  word  “  damned  ” 
formerly  meant  “  condemned  ”  and  is  so  trans¬ 
lated.  The  English  word  “  hell  ”  was  made  to 
do  service  for  four  different  words  in  the  orig¬ 
inal,  one  Hebrew,  “  Sheol  ”  and  three  Greek, 
“  Hades,”  “  Gehenna  ”  and  “  Tartarus.”  The 
Revisers  have  done  a  good  service  to  truth  here 
by  bringing  out  the  ideas  in  the  original.  Then 

[83] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


too  “  meat-offering  ”  gave  a  false  impression.  By 
“  meat  ”  we  understand  “  flesh.”  Not  so  the 
Hebrew.  As  there  was  no  flesh  used  in  the 
“  meat-offering  ”  it  made  for  clearness  to  use  the 
term  “  meal-offering.”  “  To  ear  ”  means  “  to 
plow  ”  and  is  so  translated. 

As  the  chapter-headings  tended  to  lead  astray, 
they  were  removed  in  the  Revision.  Chapters  and 
verses  were  retained  but  made  subordinate  to  the 
paragraphs.  The  dominating  purpose  was  to 
emphasize  the  thought  of  the  Scriptures.  Then 
too  the  Psalms  are  shown  to  be  not  a  single  book 
but  a  collection  of  five  books  and  the  Proverbs  a 
collection  of  seven  books.  The  composite  1  char¬ 
acter  of  the  Bible  is  thus  revealed.  Poetical  gems 
long  obscured  in  prose  translations  are  repro¬ 
duced  in  the  Revision  in  poetical  forms. 

The  chief  reason  for  revision,  however,  was 
in  the  manuscripts.  Hundreds  of  manuscripts 
unknown  to  the  translators  of  161 1  were  at  hand. 
For  three  hundred  years  these  newly  discovered 
manuscripts  had  been  accumulating.  When 
Erasmus  brought  out  his  Greek  New  Testament 
in  1516,  he  had  only  eight  manuscripts  at  his 
command  and  the  chief  of  these  were  cursives 
dating  from  the  thirteenth  to  the  sixteenth  cen¬ 
turies.  The  scholar  now  has  over  three  thousand 

1  See  F.  G.  Lewis,  “  How  the  Bible  Grew.” 

[84] 


NECESSITY  OF  MODERN  REVISIONS 


manuscripts,  some  of  which  are  one  thousand 
years  older  than  those  available  to  the  scholars 
appointed  by  King  James. 

A  facsimile  representation  of  two  of  these 
documents  may  be  seen  at  the  bottom  of  the 
Chart.  They  are  the  two  oldest  and  best  pre¬ 
served  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament  known 
at  the  present  time.  Neither  of  these  was  accessi¬ 
ble  to  the  translators  in  1611.  The  one  to  the 
right  under  “  B  ”  is  the  Vatican  Manuscript  of 
the  Vatican  Library  in  Rome.  It  was  in  the  pos¬ 
session  of  the  Roman  Catholics,  but  they  would 
not  permit  the  Protestants  at  that  time  to  see  it. 
The  bitterness  of  the  Reformation  struggle  was 
still  at  its  height.  At  the  left  of  the  Chart  under 
ft  is  a  reproduction  of  the  Sinaitic  Manuscript 
now  in  the  Imperial  Library  of  Petrograd.  It 
was  not  found  until  1859,  within  the  memory  of 
many  living  today;  hence  was  not  at  the  com¬ 
mand  of  the  translators  of  the  King  James  Bible 
over  three  hundred  years  ago. 

The  Sinaitic  and  Vatican  manuscripts  were 
written  in  the  fourth  century  and  are  copies  of  a 
manuscript  of  the  second  century.  Both  are  now 
open  to  the  scholars  of  the  world.  With  such 
manuscripts  in  their  possession,  it  was  inevitable 
that  Protestant  scholars  would  give  recognition 
to  their  testimony. 


[85] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


An  illustration  of  their  influence  may  be  seen 
by  referring  to  the  Sinaitic  lines  on  the  Chart. 
They  are  taken  from  i  Timothy  3  :  16  which 
reads  in  the  King  James  Version:  “And  with¬ 
out  controversy  great  is  the  mystery  of  godliness ; 
God  was  manifest  in  the  flesh.”  Why  the  change 
in  the  Revised  versions  to  “  He  who  was  manifest 
in  the  flesh  ”  ?  Look  at  the  last  line  in  the  Chart. 
Note  the  letters  OC,  Hos.  This  is  the  relative 
pronoun,  “  who.”  If  the  word  were  “  God  ”  in 
the  Greek ,  it  would  be  OC,  Theos,  but  it  is  not. 
Hence  the  Revisers  translated  “  He  who  ”  and 
not  “  God.” 

Dr.  Alfred  Plummer  says : 2 

It  is  certain  that  St.  Paul  did  not  write,  “  God  was  mani¬ 
fest  in  the  flesh,”  but  “  Who  was  manifest  in  the  flesh.” 
The  reading  “  God  was  manifested  in  the  flesh  ”  appears 
in  no  Christian  writer  until  late  in  the  fourth  century,  and 
in  no  translation  of  the  Scriptures  earlier  than  the  seventh 
or  eighth  century.  And  it  is  not  found  in  any  of  the  five 
great  primary  MSS,  except  as  a  correction  made  by  a  later 
scribe,  who  knew  of  the  reading  “  God  was  manifested,” 
and  either  wished  to  preserve  it  as  an  alternative  reading, 
or  as  an  interpolation. 

The  Revisers,  therefore,  did  not  arbitrarily 
change  the  Scriptures.  No,  they  were  simply  in¬ 
tellectually  and  morally  honest.  They  gave  us 
the  testimony  of  two  of  the  oldest  and  best  pre- 

2  Expositor’s  Bible,  “Timothy,”  p.  133,  134. 

[86] 


NECESSITY  OF  MODERN  REVISIONS 


served  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament  in  the 
possession  of  the  Church.  The  Sinaitic  and  the 
Vatican  manuscripts  are  alike  here.  Had  the 
scholars  of  King  James’  day  possessed  such 
manuscripts  they  would  have  rejoiced  in  the  priv¬ 
ilege  and  used  them.  It  may  be  of  interest  to 
know  that  the  Rheims-Douay  Bible  translates 
this  text  as  in  the  Revised  Versions,  “  He  who 
was-  manifest  in  the  flesh.”  The  text  of  1611 
differs  from  that  of  1881  in  5,788  readings. 

When  the  reader  of  the  Revised  Versions  comes 
upon  changes  and  omissions  of  readings  found  in 
the  King  James  Version,  he  will  now  understand. 
The  Revisers  have  given  what  in  their  judgment 
is  the  best  testimony  of  the  best  manuscripts 
available.  It  may  be  helpful  to  call  attention  to  a 
few  of  the  more  striking  differences  in  the  Re¬ 
visions  growing  out  of  a  study  of  the  original 
texts.  Compare  the  readings  of  the  King  James 
and  the  Revised  versions  in  the  following : 

1.  The  Doxology  of  the  Lord’s  Prayer,  Mat¬ 
thew  6  :  13.  (Omitted.) 

2.  The  baptismal  confession  of  the  eunuch, 
Acts  8  :  37.  (Omitted.) 

3.  The  three  heavenly  witnesses,  1  John  5  : 
7,  8.  (Omitted.) 

4.  The  ending  of  Mark’s  Gospel,  Mark  16  : 
9-20.  (Spaced.) 


[87] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


This  last  is  a  very  important  difference  and 
should  be  carefully  studied  and  considered.  The 
Revisers  retained  verses  9-20  but  separated  them 
from  verse  8  by  an  intervening  space.  Why  the 
space?  To  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  two 
oldest  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament  we  pos¬ 
sess  omit  them.  At  the  bottom  of  the  Chart  to 
the  right  is  indicated  the  Vatican  manuscript  end¬ 
ing  the  Gospel  of  Mark  with  verse  8.  Verses 
9-20  are  omitted.  The  same  omission  is  found 
in  the  Sinaitic  manuscript  in  the  Gospel  of  Mark. 
To  note  the  omission  of  the  verses  9-20  at  the 
end  of  Mark’s  Gospel  in  these  two  oldest  Gospel 
manuscripts  is  simply  a  matter  of  moral  honesty. 
To  have  withheld  the  facts  from  the  people  would 
have  been  discreditable  to  scholarship.  The  obli¬ 
gation  of  truth  is  to  come  to  the  light. 


[88] 


X 


ROMANCE  AND  REALITY  IN 
MANUSCRIPTS 

The  Sinaitic  Manuscript  indicated  in  two 
places  on  the  Chart,  is  the  most  complete  manu¬ 
script  of  the  Bible  in  existence.  It  ranks  equal 
in  age  with  the  Vatican  which  is  thought  by  some 
to  be  the  oldest.  The  symbol  by  which  it  is  des¬ 
ignated  is  the  first  letter  of  the  Hebrew  alpha¬ 
bet,  ft. 

The  story  of  the  discovery  of  the  Sinaitic 
Manuscript  is  as  interesting  as  a  novel.  In  1844, 
that  great  German  scholar,  Tischendorf,  went  on 
a  pilgrimage  through  the  East,  seeking  for  old 
manuscripts.  While  visiting  the  monastery  of 
St.  Catherine  at  the  foot  of  Mt.  Sinai,  he  chanced 
to  see  in  the  hall  a  basket  containing  old  parch¬ 
ments  set  apart  for  the  fire.  Plucking  a  leaf  out 
of  the  basket,  what  was  his  surprise  to  discover 
that  he  had  a  part  of  a  most  ancient  manuscript. 
Eagerly  he  rescued  the  precious  leaves  from  dan¬ 
ger.  They  proved  to  be  a  copy  of  the  Septua- 
gint  (yellow). 

The  zeal  of  Tischendorf  over  his  find  was  his 

[89] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


misfortune.  The  monks  became  cautious.  They 
permitted  him  to  take  away  the  forty-three  leaves 
he  rescued  from  the  basket,  but  would  not  reveal 
to  him  the  existence  of  the  remainder  of  the  docu¬ 
ment.  Tischendorf  returned  to  Europe  with  his 
precious  sheets  and  started  to  work  for  the  recov¬ 
ery  of  the  rest.  For  fifteen  years  he  toiled,  using 
every  avenue  of  influence.  Finally,  after  three 
trips  to  the  monastery,  with  the  aid  of  Czar  Alex¬ 
ander  II  of  Russia,  he  succeeded. 

In  1859,  Tischendorf  made  his  third  trip  to  the 
Monastery  of  St.  Catherine  seeking  for  the  great 
treasure.  The  effort  seemed  hopeless.  The  last 
evening  of  his  stay  had  come.  He  was  in  the 
steward’s  cell  enjoying  that  official’s  hospitality. 
After  the  refreshment,  the  steward  showed  him  a 
manuscript  of  the  Septuagint.  It  was  the  very 
document  Tischendorf  had  seen  in  part  fifteen 
years  before.  Concealing  his  emotions,  he  re¬ 
quested  permission  to  examine  the  manuscript  in 
his  cell  that  evening.  The  request  was  granted. 

And  there  by  myself  [said  Tischendorf]  I  gave  way  to 
my  transports  of  joy.  I  knew  that  I  held  in  my  hand  one 
of  the  most  precious  Biblical  treasures  in  existence,  a  docu¬ 
ment  whose  age  and  importance  exceeded  that  of  any  I 
had  ever  seen  after  20  years  of  study  of  the  subject. 

The  Sinaitic  Manuscript  contains  large  por¬ 
tions  of  the  Old  Testament  in  the  Septuagint 

[90] 


ROMANCE  AND  REALITY  IN  MANUSCRIPTS 


(199  leaves),  and  the  entire  New  Testament  to¬ 
gether  with  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas  and  the 
Shepherd  of  Hermas.  There  are  346E2  leaves, 
13J4  inches  wide  by  14%  inches  long,  with  four 
columns  of  48  lines  each  to  a  page.  The  manu¬ 
script  is  an  uncial ,  written  in  capital  letters  with¬ 
out  any  division  of  words  or  sentences.  It  is  a 
product  of  the  fourth  century  and  a  copy  of  a 
manuscript  of  the  second  century  after  Christ. 

With  this  old  document  in  his  cell,  Tischendorf 
gave  himself  to  that  great  joy  of  a  scholar,  copy¬ 
ing  and  making  notes  of  its  contents  long  into  the 
night.  In  the  morning  a  greater  joy  came.  He 
was  permitted  to  take  the  manuscript  to  Cairo. 
There,  in  two  months,  he  copied  the  text  entire. 
The  greatest  joy  came  when,  in  1862,  this  great 
Scripture  record  was  published  at  the  expense  of 
Czar  Alexander  II  in  commemoration  of  the  first 
millennium  of  the  Russian  Empire.  Tischendorf, 
with  the  aid  of  the  Czar,  had  secured  posses¬ 
sion  of  the  manuscript  and  placed  it  in  the  Im¬ 
perial  Library  of  Petrograd.  After  one  thousand 
five  hundred  years  of  oblivion  it  was  brought 
forth  to  the  light. 

We  can  only  speculate  as  to  its  origin.  Con¬ 
stantine  the  Great,  in  A.  D.  331,  ordered  fifty 
copies  of  the  Scriptures  to  be  specially  prepared 
for  the  Church  of  Constantinople.  Tischendorf 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


thought  the  Emperor  Justinian  (527-565)  may 
have  secured  one  of  these  copies  and  placed  it  in 
the  monastery  of  Mt.  Sinai  which  he  founded. 
On  the  presentation  of  a  new  silver  shrine  for 
the  coffin  of  St.  Catharine  to  the  Convent  by  the 
Emperor  of  Russia,  the  manuscript  was  presented 
to  the  Czar  in  1869  in  the  name  of  the  new  prior, 
Archbishop  Kallistratos,  and  the  monks  of  the 
Convents  of  St.  Catharine  and  Cairo. 

Of  about  equal  age,  more  accurate  in  work¬ 
manship  but  less  complete  in  content  is  the  Vati¬ 
can  Manuscript  of  the  Vatican  Library  of  Rome. 
This  uncial  is  supposed  to  have  been  copied  in 
Egypt  by  a  skilful  and  critical  scholar.  It  may 
have  been  brought  to  Rome  shortly  after  the 
founding  of  the  Vatican  Library  by  Pope  Nicho¬ 
las  V  in  1448.  Scrivener  traced  it  to  Cardinal 
Bessarion,  who  labored  ineffectually  for  the  re¬ 
union  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  Churches.  The 
earliest  catalogue  of  the  Library,  1475,  notes  its 
presence.  It  is  the  glory  of  the  Vatican  Library. 

The  Vatican  Manuscript  contains  the  whole 
Bible  to  Hebrews  9  :  14  with  the  exception  of 
Genesis  1  to  46  and  Psalms  105  to  137.  It  is 
made  up  of  759  leaves,  10  by  ioj4  inches,  with 
three  columns  of  42  lines  to  each  leaf,  and  is  the 
chief  manuscript  authority  for  Westcott  and 
Hort’s  text. 


[92] 


ROMANCE  AND  REALITY  IN  MANUSCRIPTS 


By  a  strange  fate  the  Vatican  Manuscript  was 
not  given  to  the  world  until  1 868-81.  Then  a 
complete  and  critical  edition  was  issued  using 
type  cast  from  the  same  molds  employed  for 
Tischendorf’s  edition  of  the  Sinaitic  Manuscript. 
This  is  one  of  the  ironies  of  history.  For  long 
years  the  Roman  Catholics  locked  it  away  from 
Protestant  scholars.  That  it  should  appear  for 
the  first  time  in  public  in  a  Protestant  dress  is 
indeed  remarkable.  Yet  such  is  the  fact. 

So  late  as  1845,  Doctor  Tregelles  was  searched 
before  being  permitted  to  open  the  volume  and 
all  pens,  ink,  and  paper  were  taken  from  him. 
Two  priests  watched  him  continually.  If  he  be¬ 
came  too  intent  in  the  study  of  the  manuscript, 
they  sought  to  distract  his  attention ;  if  too  long, 
they  would  snatch  the  manuscript  away.  By 
craft,  he  managed  to  secure  a  few  notes  on  his 
cuffs  and  finger-nails. 

Two  years  earlier,  Tischendorf  could  get  only 
six  hours  for  a  hasty  examination  of  the  manu¬ 
script  and  the  copying  of  a  few  lines.  When  he  had 
discovered  the  Sinaitic  Manuscript  and  possessed 
an  authority  equal  to  the  Vatican  Manuscript,  the 
doors  of  the  Vatican  Library  swung  open  wider. 
He  was  given  forty-two  hours  and  special  privi¬ 
leges.  Now  scholarship  has  risen  above  such 
actions,  and  the  Vatican  Manuscript  is  accessible 

[93] 


H 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


to  all  in  photographic  reproductions.  A  beautiful 
edition  was  presented  to  the  Columbian  Exposi¬ 
tion  (Chicago,  1892)  by  Pope  Leo  XIII. 

The  Codex  Alexandrinus  comes  after  the 
Sinaitic  and  Vatican  manuscripts  in  point  of  age 
and  value.  It  is  treasured  in  the  British  Museum, 
London,  and  is  noted  as  being  the  first  uncial  to 
be  used  by  textual  critics. 

There  are  773  leaves,  each  12^4  inches  long  by 
IO/4  inches  wide,  with  two  columns  to  a  leaf. 
The  Old  Testament  is  from  the  Septuagint.  The 
New  Testament  omits  Matthew  1  :  1  to  25  :  6; 
John  6  :  50  to  8  :  52;  2  Corinthians  4  :  13  to 
12  :  6,  but  contains  “  the  Epistle  of  Clement  of 
Rome  to  the  Corinthians  ”  and  a  fragment  of  a 
second. 

Uncial  manuscripts  or  those  written  in  capital 
letters  date  from  the  fourth  to  the  tenth  century. 
Over  one  hundred  of  these  are  in  existence,  in¬ 
cluding  fragments.  They  are  symbolized  by  let¬ 
ters  and  are  divided  into  two  classes. 

Uncials  of  the  first  class  are  four  in  number; 
the  Sinaitic  (  ft),  the  Alexandrian  (A),  the  Vati¬ 
can  (B),  and  Ephraem  (C).  The  Alexandrian 
is  symbolized  by  (A)  because  so  designated  in 
Bishop  Walton’s  Polyglot.  It  should  follow  ft 
and  B,  but  custom  prevails  over  fact  of  time  and 
value. 


[94] 


JESUS  CHRIST 


ORAL  TRADITION  1 
ITAI  A  LK.WR.TTEN  RECORDS  I 
■  M|  Nx  BURNED  303-312  J 

VULGA7 

'E  405  A.D. 

|  L 

J  JEROME 

CANON 

I 

CAEDMON  700„ 

39TAJX 

I 

1  “IE 

IXIMENES  J 
1  POLYGLOT  f 

[WYCLIF1382 

NO  HEB.-GRK. 

|TURKS1453 1* 

ERASMUS  1516 

TYNDALE 

1525  —  1536 

I  Clement  via  g  i 

|  1592.  |  1 

DOUAY  1609  . 

g  BKS.  BURNED  g 

! !  martyrs 

KING 

JAMES 

1611 

n^nOBOBM  n 

|  JRSLM 1672 1 1  j  |  J  |  3000  MSS.  gF 

ENGLISH  '  REVISED  1881  -  1885 


i  .  1  *  ISI  1 


STANDARD  REVISED  1901 


I - INI - IHI  S  IK 


POLYCARP  69-156 
PAP1AS  Ob-163 
0LDE5TMSl4thCENT. 


TRADITIONALISTS 


VATICAN  4-1475 


BEZAE  -2-6-1546 
MT.LK.JN.MK. 

EPHRAEM  5-164841 

TEXTUAL1STS 

S1NAITIC4-1859 


OA€A€r€lAyTAlCMH  T£,.E:<j)OBOyN 
eK0AM8eiC06lNZHT€f  TO TA  p-MKW&d 


Chart  showing  development  of  N.  T.  Note  how  the  N.  T. 
stream  flowed  first  over  to  the  Latin,  then  to  the  English. 

To  the  right  are  the  great  N.  T.  manuscripts.  Bezae  2-6-1546 
means  Bezae  is  a  MS  of  the  6th  century,  a  copy  of  a  MS  of  the 
2nd  century,  was  brought  to  light  in  1546. 

At  the  bottom  of  the  Chart  under  B  is  a  part  of  the  Vatican 
MS.  (Mk.  16  :  6,  8.)  The  letters  are  all  capital  and  there  is  no 
spacing  between  words.  The  letters  IN  with  a  dash  over  them 
are  an  abbreviation  of  I-qaouv,  Jesus. 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


Codex  Bezse  is  an  example  of  uncials  of  the 
second  class  and  is  designated  by  the  letter  (D). 

The  Codex  Ephraem  well  illustrates  the  diffi¬ 
culties  of  textual  scholarship.  It  is  what  is 
known  as  a  palimpsest,  one  in  which  the  original 
writing  has  been  rubbed  off  to  make  way  for 
another  and  then  restored.  This  manuscript  was 
written  in  the  fifth  century  and  contains  about 
two-thirds  of  the  New  Testament.  In  the  twelfth 
century  an  admirer  of  the  Syrian  Father 
Ephraem  (d.  378)  erased  the  Scriptures  and 
copied  one  of  the  works  of  Ephraem  on  the 
parchment. 

The  manuscript  was  brought  to  light  in  the 
sixteenth  century,  but  the  older  Scriptural  writ¬ 
ing  was  not  suspected  until  the  seventeenth  cen¬ 
tury.  In  1834,  a  chemical  preparation  restored 
the  original  text.  Both  the  old  and  the  new  were 
in  confused  mixture.  None  could  decipher  the 
Scripture.  In  1840  Tischendorf  went  to  Paris 
and  gave  himself  to  the  task.  He  labored  from 
December,  1840,  to  September,  1841,  and  opened 
to  the  world  one  of  its  greatest  literary  treasures. 
The  manuscript  contains  249  leaves,  145  of  which 
belong  to  the  New  Testament. 

Codex  Bezge  is  an  uncial  of  the  sixth  century 
containing  only  the  Gospels  and  the  Acts.  The 
letters  are  square  upright.  There  are  four  hun- 

[96] 


ROMANCE  AND  REALITY  IN  MANUSCRIPTS 


dred  and  fifteen  pages,  with  one  column  to  a  page. 
The  order  of  the  Gospels  is  unique — Matthew, 
John,  Luke,  Mark- — showing  that  the  order  was 
not  arbitrary.  On  one  page  is  the  Greek.  On 
the  opposite  page  is  the  Latin.  Both  texts  are 
very  old,  probably  dating  back  to  the  second  cen¬ 
tury.  Another  peculiarity  is  the  numerous  inter¬ 
polations,  the  Acts  containing  no  less  than  six 
hundred. 

Theodore  Beza  presented  this  manuscript  to 
the  University  of  Cambridge  in  1581.  He  said 
that  it  had  been  secured  from  the  Abbey  of  St. 
Irenaeus  in  Lyons  when  that  city  was  sacked  in 
1 562.  It  was  first  brought  to  light  at  the  Council 
of  Trent  (1546)  by  the  Bishop  of  Clermont  in 
Auvergne. 

The  manuscripts  which  we  have  thus  briefly 
described  set  before  us  a  number  of  striking 
facts.  They  show  that  books  other  than  those 
now  contained  in  our  Bibles  were  once  given  a 
place  of  honor  alongside  of  those  found  in  the 
Book  today. 

The  Sinaitic  Manuscript,  one  of  the  oldest 
manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament  now  in  exis¬ 
tence,  contains  “  The  Epistle  of  Barnabas  ”  and 
“  The  Shepherd  of  Hennas.”  The  Alexandrian 
has  “  The  Epistle  of  Clement  of  Rome  to  the 
Corinthians.” 


[97] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


The  Codex  Bezse  surprises  us  by  reason  of 
the  order  of  the  Gospels.  We  are  accustomed  to 
the  order,  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  John.  The 
order  of  the  Gospels  familiar  to  us  was  fixed  by 
the  end  of  the  second  century.  The  oldest  West¬ 
ern,  Latin  manuscripts,  however,  have  Matthew, 
John,  Luke,  Mark.  The  Gothic  version  and 
Greek  copies  until  the  ninth  century  had  the  same 
form.  In  the  East  until  the  fifth  century  there 
was  a  modification,  i.  e.,  Matthew,  John,  Mark, 
Luke.  The  Codex  Bezae  has  Matthew,  John, 
Luke,  Mark,  showing  that  there  was  a  time  when 
different  orders  prevailed  and  that  the  present 
order  is  the  result  of  development.  The  numer¬ 
ous  interpolations  found  in  Codex  Bezae  make  it 
plain  that  “  adding  to  ”  manuscripts  on  the  part 
of  scribes  was  not  an  unusual  occurrence.  The 
great  Origen  did  so. 

The  Codex  Ephraem  is  witness  to  the  fact  that 
the  Scripture  can  be  recovered  only  by  the  most 
painstaking  labor  of  the  most  accomplished 
scholars. 

Manuscripts  written  with  small  letters  or  in  the 
current  hand  are  called  cursives .  They  date 
from  the  ninth  to  the  middle  of  the  fifteenth  cen¬ 
tury  although  some  were  produced  in  the  six¬ 
teenth  century.  The  art  of  printing  rendered 
these  methods  obsolete. 


[98] 


ROMANCE  AND  REALITY  IN  MANUSCRIPTS 


There  are  over  three  thousand  cursive  manu¬ 
scripts  containing  parts  of  the  New  Testament. 
Some  twenty  or  thirty  of  them  possess  great  value 
by  reason  of  their  agreement  with  the  oldest 
manuscripts  or  for  other  peculiarities.  More  than 
thirty  of  them  contain  the  New  Testament  entire. 

The  cursives  are  symbolized  by  arabic  numer¬ 
als  instead  of  letters  as  in  the  case  of  uncials. 
Codex  33  is  regarded  most  highly.  It  is  called 
“  the  queen  of  cursives  ”  but  has  suffered  “  most 
from  damp  and  decay.”  Codex  61  is  notable  in 
that  it  contains  the  controverted  passage  i  John 
5  :  7  in  a  glazed  page  to  protect  it.  From  this 
manuscript  this  text  passed  into  the  printed 
editions  of  the  Greek  text  and  thence  into  transla¬ 
tions  made  therefrom. 

Versions  are  translations  made  from  the  orig¬ 
inal  manuscripts.  Some  are  older  than  any  exist¬ 
ing  Greek  texts,  but  they  have  suffered  from  tex¬ 
tual  corruptions.  We  have  no  manuscript  of  a 
version  earlier  than  the  fourth  century  although 
the  translation  dates  from  the  second  century. 
Versions  are  valuable  in  giving  evidence  of  omis¬ 
sions  or  insertions  in  the  text  used  by  the  trans¬ 
lator. 

The  versions  or  translations  which  have  come 
down  to  us  are  in  five  streams  or  languages. 

Of  the  Syriac  versions,  the  Peshito  is  the  most 

[99] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


important.  It  is  called  “  the  queen  of  versions  ” 
because  of  its  accuracy  in  translation.  The  Syriac 
Christians  still  regard  it  as  their  sacred  text.  A 
peculiarity  of  this  version  is  in  its  omission  of 
the  Apocrypha  in  the  Old  Testament  and  in  the 
New  Testament  of  Second  Peter,  Second  and 
Third  John,  Jude,  and  The  Apocalypse.  The 
Curetonian  Syriac  version  is  older  than  the 
Peshito  but  contains  only  fragments  of  the 
Gospels. 

Two  Latin  versions  are  of  historic  significance, 
the  Old  Latin  or  Itala  and  the  Vulgate  which 
grew  out  of  it.  The  Vulgate  has  been  spoken  of 
at  length.  The  Old  Latin  or  Itala  stands  nearest 
in  age  to  the  Peshito.  It  dates  from  the  middle 
of  the  second  century.  The  Apocryphal  books  of 
Wisdom,  Ecclesiasticus,  First  and  Second  Macca¬ 
bees,  Baruch,  the  Prayer  of  Manasseh,  and 
Fourth  Ezra  (Second  Esdras)  were  incorporated 
in  the  Vulgate  almost  unchanged  by  Jerome. 
Two  versions  of  the  Psalms  by  Jerome  are  of 
note,  the  Roman  Psalter  made  by  the  aid  of  the 
LXX  and  the  Gallican  Psalter  in  which  Origen’s 
Hexapha  was  used.  This  Gallican  Psalter  super¬ 
seded  the  Roman  Psalter  in  1 566  and  is  now  used 
throughout  the  Roman  Church  except  in  St. 
Peter’s,  Rome,  the  Duomo  at  Milan,  and  St. 
Mark’s,  Venice,  where  the  Roman  Psalter  is  used. 


[  100] 


ROMANCE  AND  REALITY  IN  MANUSCRIPTS 


The  Old  Egyptian  or  Coptic  versions  are  in 
two  dialects,  the  Memphitic  or  Bahiric  and  the 
Thebaic  or  Sahidic.  Their  special  value  is  in 
this  that  they  are  independent  witnesses  to  a 
“  very  ancient  text  from  different  manuscripts, 
with  the  adoption  of  many  Greek  words.”  The 
New  Testament  is  a  product  of  the  second  cen¬ 
tury. 

Abyssinia  gave  birth  to  the  Ethiopic  versions 
about  the  fourth  century.  They  are  not  regarded 
so  highly  as  the  others. 

The  Gothic  versions  are  those  translations 
given  the  Goths  by  that  great  apostle,  Ulfilas. 
In  the  fourth  century  he  translated  the  Old  Tes¬ 
tament  from  the  Septuagint  and  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  from  the  Greek.  Seven  codices  have  come 
down  to  us,  but  they  are  only  fragmentary. 

The  Armenian  version  contains  the  entire 
Bible.  The  manuscripts  differ  widely  and  are 
the  products  of  the  fifth  century.  They  contain 
four  books  acknowledged  by  few,  the  “  History 
of  Joseph  and  Assenath  ”  and  the  “  Testimony 
of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs  ”  in  the  Old  Testament, 
and  the  “  Epistle  of  the  Corinthians  to  St.  Paul  ” 
and  “  The  Third  Epistle  of  St.  Paul  to  the 
Corinthians”  in  the  New  Testament. 


[  ioi  ] 


XI 


THE  PATHWAY  OF  PROGRESS 

The  recital  of  these  facts  about  a  few  manu¬ 
scripts  will  lead  to  a  sympathetic  appreciation  of 
the  necessity  for  a  new  translation  of  the  Bible. 
Sympathetic  appreciation  will  be  given  to  the 
work  of  scholars,  when  it  is  recalled  that  for 
years  they  have  been  subjecting  themselves  to  the 
severest  discipline,  gathering  materials,  compar¬ 
ing  manuscripts  and  tabulating  the  differences  in 
the  three  thousand  or  more  manuscripts  avail¬ 
able. 

How  natural,  with  all  this  new  material,  that 
the  Convocation  of  Canterbury,  in  1870,  should 
propose  a  new  revision  of  the  Scriptures!  The 
proposal  met  with  favor,  and  on  June  22,  1870, 
the  work  was  begun.  Fifty-two  scholars  of  En¬ 
gland  were  appointed.  Thirty  American  scholars 
were  associated  later.  No  sect  lines  were  recog¬ 
nized.  For  ten  years  these  scholars  labored  on 
the  New  Testament  and  for  fourteen  years  on  the 
Old  Testament.  In  1881  the  English  Revised 
New  Testament  appeared  and  in  1885  the  Old 
Testament. 


[  102] 


THE  PATHWAY  OF  PROGRESS 


Fourteeen  years  later  the  American  scholars 
put  forth  the  American  Standard  Revised  Ver¬ 
sion.  This  set  forth  the  improvements  deemed 
necessary  by  the  American  scholars  and  is  re¬ 
garded  as  the  finest  of  commentaries  on  the  Scrip¬ 
tures.  In  1898  a  new  edition  of  the  Revised 
Bible  with  carefully  amended  marginal  references 
appeared.  A  committee  of  the  Revisers  in  1895 
published  a  revised  translation  of  the  Apocrypha. 

When  the  English  Revised  New  Testament  ap¬ 
peared  in  1881,  it  created  a  sensation.  Some¬ 
thing  like  a  moral  earthquake  was  experienced. 
History  repeated  itself.  Protests  were  heard 
similar  to  those  launched  against  Tyndale  and 
Wyclif  as  well  as  against  Jerome,  Origen  and 
the  LXX.  Like  these  worthies,  the  Revisers  un¬ 
derstood  that  the  way  of  truth  was  the  way  of 
the  cross.  Like  them  they  dared  to  venture  on 
the  hazardous  voyage  over  the  ocean  of  popular 
misunderstanding  and  bitter  criticism. 

The  preface  to  the  English  Revised  Version 
shows  that  the  Revisers  understood  the  difficulties 
of  their  position. 

We  know  full  well  [said  they]  that  defects  must  have 
their  place  in  a  work  so  long  and  so  arduous  as  this  which 
has  now  come  to  an  end.  Blemishes  and  imperfections 
there  are  in  the  noble  Translation  which  we  have  been 
called  upon  to  revise;  blemishes  and  imperfections  will 
assuredly  be  found  in  our  own  Revision.  All  endeavors 

[  103] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


to  translate  the  Holy  Scriptures  into  another  tongue  must 
fall  short  of  their  aim,  when  the  obligation  is  imposed  of 
producing  a  version  that  shall  be  alike  literal  and  idiomatic, 
faithful  to  each  thought  of  the  original  and  yet,  in  the 
expression  of  it,  harmonious  and  free.  While  we  dare  to 
hope  that  in  places  not  a  few  of  the  New  Testament  the 
introduction  of  slight  changes  has  cast  a  new  light  upon 
much  that  was  difficult  and  obscure,  we  cannot  forget  how 
often  we  have  failed  in  expressing  some  finer  shade  of 
meaning  which  we  recognized  in  the  original,  how  often 
idiom  has  stood  in  the  way  of  a  perfect  rendering,  and 
how  often  the  attempt  to  preserve  a  familiar  form  of 
words,  or  even  a  familiar  cadence,  has  only  added  another 
perplexity  to  those  which  already  beset  us. 

Noble  words  these!  They  breathe  the  spirit 
of  men  who  are  conscious  of  God  and  duty. 

The  major  criticism  against  the  Revised  Ver¬ 
sion  has  been  directed  against  the  purity  of  the 
English  used.  Dean  Burgeon  found  it  “  hope¬ 
lessly  at  fault.”  Spurgeon  called  it  “  a  blunder 
Bible.”  To  Dr.  A.  K.  H.  Boyd  it  was  “  not 
irritating  but  infuriating.”  And  John  Bright 
said, 

I  do  not  think  the  revisers  understood  English  as  well  as 
the  translators  of  the  Authorized  Version,  however  much 
better  they  may  have  understood  Greek. 

The  major  criticism  upon  the  Authorized  Ver¬ 
sion  was  with  reference  to  its  inaccuracy. 
Broughton,  the  greatest  Hebrew  scholar  of  that 
day,  wrote  to  James  I: 

[  104] 


THE  PATHWAY  OF  PROGRESS 


It  is  so  ill  done.  .  .  I  would  rather  be  torn  asunder  by 
wild  horses  than  allow  such  a  version  to  be  imposed  on 
the  Church. 

The  major  criticism  launched  against  Tyndale 
was  in  regard  to  errors.  Sir  Thomas  More  de¬ 
clared  that  “  to  study  to  find  errors  in  Tyndale’s 
book  was  like  studying  to  find  water  in  the  sea.” 
And  Bishop  Tunstal,  in  a  sermon  at  St.  Paul’s, 
London,  sought  to  poison  the  minds  of  the  peo¬ 
ple  with  the  assertion  that  he  himself  had  “  found 
in  it  more  than  2,000  errors.” 

In  spite  of  opposition  and  censure  progress 
has  been  made.  From  Tyndale’s  to  Matthew’s, 
from  Matthew’s  to  the  Great,  the  Geneva  and  the 
Bishops’  Bibles,  from  these  to  the  King  James, 
and  from  this  to  the  English  and  American 
Standard  Revised  Versions  represent  a  gain. 
There  is  no  loss.  What  seems  so  is  only  apparent. 
We  are  richer  than  of  old  for  all  are  ours.  To 
the  beauty  and  rhythm  of  the  old  there  are  added 
the  clearness  and  accuracy  of  the  new  transla¬ 
tions. 

Nor  is  the  end  yet.  Another  revision  is  inevi¬ 
table.  The  Revisers  were  not  prepared  to  com¬ 
plete  the  process.  Much  was  left  undone.  Much 
that  was  done  was  imperfect,  left  so  consciously 
because  the  materials  were  not  at  hand  to  make 
finality  possible.  Scholars  feel  that  it  will  take 

[  105  ] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


fifty  years  of  research  and  collaboration  before 
the  Old  Testament  can  be  translated  as  accurately 
a9  the  New  Testament.  The  next  step  may  land 
us  in  that  coveted  estate  where  the  truth  of  the 
Bible  shall  be  clothed  in  both  beauty  of  form  and 
accuracy  of  statement. 

Till  then  let  us  be  grateful  to  those  consecrated 
scholars  who  through  long  years  of  toil  and  sac¬ 
rifice,  without  remuneration  and  often  without 
appreciation  have  given  to  us  these  priceless  me¬ 
morials  of  our  religion.  How  lacking  in  sym¬ 
pathy  with  true  sacrifice  are  they  who  hurl  anath¬ 
emas  at  the  scholars  of  the  church ! 

Every  time  the  Bible  has  been  given  to  the 
world  in  a  vital  way,  it  has  been  at  the  hands  of  a 
scholar.  Ezra  was  a  scholar.  Origen  was  a 
scholar.  The  Seventy  who  produced  the  Septua- 
gint  were  scholars.  Jerome  was  a  scholar.  The 
Rheims-Douay  was  the  work  of  scholars.  The 
fifty-four  men  of  the  King  James  Version,  the 
fifty-two  men  of  the  English  Revised  together 
with  their  thirty  American  colaborers,  and  the 
men  of  the  American  Standard  Revision  were 
scholars.  1  There  is  not  a  single  instance  in  his¬ 
tory  in  which  the  Bible  has  been  given  to  the 

1  Brian  Walton,  in  passing  through  the  fires  of  criticism,  found 
comfort  in  recalling  the  fact  that  Origen’s  Hexapla,  Jerome’s  Vul¬ 
gate,  and  the  Complutensian  Polyglot,  Erasmus’  Greek  New  Testa¬ 
ment,  and  the  Antwerp  and  the  French  Polyglots  were  all  assailed 
without  mercy. 


[  106] 


THE  PATHWAY  OF  PROGRESS 


people  in  greater  fulness  of  power  except  at  the 
sacrifice  of  a  scholar.  Not  one  penny  of  compen¬ 
sation  did  any  of  these  scholars  receive  for  their 
work.  Their  only  reward  was  the  consciousness 
of  the  approval  of  God  and  of  succeeding  genera¬ 
tions. 

The  more  light  we  have  upon  this  subject  and 
the  more  we  reflect,  the  deeper  becomes  our  grati¬ 
tude  for  the  cumulative  interest  of  scholarship  in 
the  translation  of- the  Scriptures. 

Tyndale’s  Testament  and  Coverdale’s  Bible  were  the 
work  of  individuals ;  the  Great  Bible  and  the  Bishops’  were 
Episcopal  in  their  origin;  the  Genevan  and  the  Rheims  and 
Douay  Bibles  were  due  to  two  bands  of  exiles,  Protestant 
and  Roman  Catholic  respectively;  but  the  idea  of  the  Re¬ 
vised  Version  was  matured  by  representatives  of  the 
Church  of  England  in  Convocation  assembled  and  carried 
through  with  the  assistance  of  members  of  other  churches. 2 

How  true  it  is  that  “  our  Bible  is  the  most 
catholic  thing  in  all  literature!  Friend  and  foe 
alike  have  been  pressed  into  service.  Men  of 
every  religious  conviction  have,  directly  or  indi¬ 
rectly,  willingly  or  unwillingly,  left  their  mark 
upon  its  pages.” 3  In  our  Bibles  as  in  our  prayer- 
books  and  our  hymnals  our  spirits  blend  in  har¬ 
monious  accord. 

2  Hastings,  Diet,  of  the  Bible,  IV,  p.  86o. 

8  McComb,  “  The  Making  of  the  English  Bible,”  p.  XIII. 


[  107] 


XII 


THE  TEST  OF  FIRE 

How  is  it  that  the  oldest  Old  Testament  manu¬ 
script  only  goes  back  to  A.  D.  916,  while  the  old¬ 
est  New  Testament  manuscript  goes  to  about 
A.  D.  350? 

One  of  the  surprising  things  to  the  uninitiated 
is  to  discover  that  all  of  the  original  manuscripts 
of  the  Scriptures  are  lost.  Not  a  single  original 
document  remains.  Our  faith  is  so  simple.  In 
our  innocency,  we  thought  we  had  in  our  posses¬ 
sion  the  very  autographs  of  the  inspired  writers. 
With  what  a  shock  did  we  learn  for  the  first  time 
that  not  only  was  there  not  a  single  autograph 
original  of  the  New  Testament  remaining,  but 
also  that  no  writer  of  the  second  or  third  century 
tells  us  that  he  ever  saw  an  original. 

Our  oldest  New  Testament  manuscript  only 
goes  back  to  the  fourth  century  A.  D.  and  is  a 
copy  of  a  manuscript  of  the  second  century  A.  D. 
Our  oldest  complete  Old  Testament  manuscript  in 
Hebrew  is  no  older  than  A.  D.  916.  The  oldest 
Vulgate  text  is  of  the  sixth  century  A.  D. 

No  sincere  believer  in  the  Scriptures  can  rest 

[108] 


THE  TEST  OF  FERE 


content  until  an  explanation  is  given  of  these  dis¬ 
quieting  facts.  When  old  foundations  give  way, 
new  foundations  must  be  established.  Faith  de¬ 
mands  security.  It  cannot  sing,  “  How  firm  a 
foundation  is  laid  for  your  faith  in  His  excellent 
word/’  when  the  supposed  “firm  foundation,”  the 
original  record,  is  not  in  existence,  and  no  word 
exists  to  show  any  one  professed  to  have  seen 
such  a  record.  To  open  the  eyes  of  the  believer 
to  the  facts  and  to  reveal  also  the  marvelous  way 
in  which  the  present  records  have  come  down  to 
us,  is  to  reassure  faith  and  lay  anew  its  founda¬ 
tion  in  intellectual  honesty  and  fearlessness. 

Between  Abraham  and  Ezra  is  an  eventful 
period  of  two  thousand  years.  All  the  light  of 
truth  from  Abraham  to  Jacob  had  to  pass 
through  the  night  of  Egyptian  bondage.  All  that 
came  from  Moses  and  Joshua  had  to  go  through 
the  wilderness  and  the  chaos  of  the  period  of  the 
Judges.  All  that  David  gained  had  to  live 
through  the  distortion  of  a  divided  kingdom  and 
the  disaster  of  a  Babylonian  exile.  True  religion 
had  a  hard  struggle  for  existence  in  both  the 
kingdoms  of  Israel  and  of  Judah.  The  record  of 
the  kings  is  for  the  most  part  a  dark  record. 

Whatever  of  truth  was  won  by  the  prophets 
went  down  into  the  wreck  of  the  kingdoms. 
Nebuchadnezzar  destroyed  the  city  of  Jerusalem, 

[  109] 


1 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


burned  the  royal  library,  and  carried  the  people 
into  exile.  As  all  the  light  of  truth  from  Abra¬ 
ham  went  into  the  night  of  Egypt,  so  all  the  light 
from  Abraham  and  Moses  and  the  prophets  went 
into  the  night  of  Babylon.  The  wonder  is  not 
that  so  little  survived  but  that  so  much  has  been 
saved  out  of  the  chaos  of  two  thousand  years. 

When  the  remnant  from  Babylon  came  back 
to  Jerusalem,  Ezra  the  scribe  set  about  collecting 
the  books  of  the  Law.  The  effect  was  electric. 
The  people  were  filled  with  rejoicing  at  hearing 
the  words  of  the  Lord.  When  after  the  dark 
night  of  the  reign  of  Manasseh,  the  Priest  Hil- 
kiah  found  the  Book  of  the  Law  of  the  Lord  in 
the  Temple  in  the  days  of  Josiah,  a  revival  broke 
out.  After  the  night  of  the  Babylonian  exile 
there  was  a  revival  of  the  passion  for  the  word 
of  God.  Deliverance  from  bondage  and  salva¬ 
tion  of  the  Scriptures  were  simultaneous  experi¬ 
ences. 

Ezra  and  those  who  followed  collected  in  suc¬ 
cessive  periods  the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the 
Writings.  What  has  come  down  to  us  shows  that 
the  materials  at  their  command  were  fragmen¬ 
tary,  and  that  they  used  large  liberty  1  in  dealing 
with  them.  Omissions  were  supplied,  parts  put 
in  new  relations,  and  separate  documents  thrown 

1  Penniman,  “  A  Book  About  the  English  Bible,”  p.  27. 

[  no] 


THE  TEST  OF  FIRE 


together  under  the  caption  of  a  given  name,  i.  e., 
Zechariah  or  Isaiah.  Added  to  this  change  of 
emphasis  in  the  thought  and  change  of  relation  in 
the  parts  was  the  division  between  the  Jews  and 
Samaritans  and  between  the  Jews  themselves. 
The  Samaritan  Pentateuch  and  the  Septuagint 
are  witness. 

Then  came  a  new  captivity  and  a  new  oppres¬ 
sion.  Not  Pharaoh  or  Nebuchadnezzar  but  An- 
tiochus  Epiphanes  (175-164)  was  trampling  the 
Jews  under  his  feet.  The  Temple  was  desecrated, 
the  people  persecuted,  and  their  Sacred  Books 
were  searched  out  monthly  and  burned.  The 
Book  of  Daniel  is  a  picture  of  the  sorrows  of  that 
day. 

With  the  advent  of  Christ  and  Christianity,  a 
double  responsibility  arose  with  a  double  stream 
of  Divine  experience.  About  170  the  sacred  books 
of  the  Christian  were  placed  alongside  those  of 
the  Hebrew.  Unfortunately,  their  interests  were 
not  seen  to  be  common.  Each  thought  primarily 
of  his  own.  Both  suffered  in  the  tragedies  of 
history. 

In  A.  D.  70  Titus  subjected  Judea  to  the  Ro¬ 
mans  and  destroyed  the  Temple.  In  the  rebellion 
under  Barcochba  (132-135)  the  Jewish  scholars 
suffered  and  the  sacred  books  of  the  Hebrews  were 
destroyed.  No  act  of  penance  on  the  part  of  the 

[in] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


Christian  can  restore  that  great  Hebrew  manu¬ 
script  Codex  Ezrae,  destroyed  by  fire  at  Toledo, 
Spain.  This  manuscript  fell  into  the  hands  of 
Edward,  the  Black  Prince,  1367.  Ignorant  of  its 
value,  he  probably  thought  he  was  doing  the  Lord 
service  in  sweating  the  Jews  out  of  a  large  sum 
of  money  to  obtain  it.  The  manuscript  was  lost 
in  the  fire  which  destroyed  the  synagogue.  Igno¬ 
rance  and  hatred  of  the  Jews,  on  the  part  of 
Christians,  were  responsible  for  the  loss  of  many 
a  precious  Hebrew  manuscript. 

The  Christian’s  sacred  books  were  to  be  sub¬ 
jected  to  a  similar  fate  under  the  Emperor  Dio¬ 
cletian.  (303-312.)  On  that  memorable  Easter 
Day  the  edict  went  forth  that  Christian  assem¬ 
blies  were  forbidden,  churches  were  to  be  demol¬ 
ished,  Scriptures  to  be  surrendered  for  destruc¬ 
tion  on  pain  of  death  and  the  confiscation  of 
property.  The  resistance  was  heroic,  but  the 
work  of  destruction  was  great  and  the  loss  in 
sacred  records  incalculable. 

Down  through  the  centuries  the  work  of  ruth¬ 
less  ignorance  and  intolerance  proceeds.  Some¬ 
times  it  is  the  Christian  defacing  the  Egyptian 
monuments  or  Archbishop  Cyril  of  Alexandria 
murdering  the  cultured  Hypatia.  (414.)  Some¬ 
times  it  is  Pope  Gregory  the  Great  (590)  burning 
the  Palatine  Library  or  Pope  Urban  II  fanning 

[  112] 


THE  TEST  OF  FIRE 


the  flame  of  persecution  against  the  Jews  in  the 
opening  of  the  first  crusade.  (1095.)  Sometimes 
it  is  the  Christian  Crusaders  sacking  the  Chris¬ 
tian  City  of  Constantinople  (1204)  and  burning 
thousands  of  manuscripts  and  parchments. 
Sometimes  it  is  the  infamous  Pope  John  XXII 
ordering  Talmuds  burned  in  France  or  Cardinal 
Ximenes  burning  Arabic  manuscripts  in  Granada 
or  an  archbishop  burning  “  a  mountain  of  manu¬ 
scripts  in  Mexico.” 

Sometimes  it  is  the  Christian  burning  his  own 
book  as  in  the  case  of  the  Bibles  of  Wyclif,  Tyn- 
dale,  and  others.  In  the  time  of  Pope  Paul  IV 
( 1 559)  there  were  forty-eight  editions  of  the 
Bible  on  the  Index  Expurgatorius.  Formal  and 
informal  have  been  the  inquisitions  against  things 
sacred  through  the  centuries.  What  remains  of 
the  havoc  of  hate  against  the  Bible  is  now  to  be 
considered. 


[  113  1 


XIII 


THE  SALVATION  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES 

i 

Beginning  with  the  manuscripts  in  our  posses¬ 
sion,  we  can  go  back  along  the  Hebrew  (black) 
stream  to  A.  D.  916.  With  the  aid  of  the  Vul¬ 
gate,  the  sixth  century  is  reached.  By  means  of 
the  Sinaitic  and  Vatican  manuscripts  we  come  to 
A.  D.  350.  We  are  speaking  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  in  manuscript  form.  At  some  time  before 
A.  D.  916,  the  Old  Testament  Hebrew  text  either 
became  standardized  and  all  other  texts  de¬ 
stroyed,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Koran,  or  through 
some  tragedy  of  destruction,  all  the  Hebrew 
texts  were  lost  except  the  present  text.  The 
Hebrew  manuscripts  are  all  alike. 

Along  the  Latin  (purple)  stream  we  can  trace 
the  Old  Testament  back  to  the  sixth  century.  But 
we  know  that  Jerome  sought  to  get  his  material 
first  from  the  Greek  (yellow)  source.  Later  he 
abandoned  the  LXX  for  the  Hebrew.  The  Vul¬ 
gate,  therefore,  carries  us  back  to  the  sixth  cen¬ 
tury  and  witnesses  to  manuscripts  along  the  He- 

1 1 14] 


THE  SALVATION  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES 


brew  and  Septuagint  streams  in  405  which  came 
from  a  far  earlier  day. 

The  Itala  (Latin)  and  the  Peshito  (Syriac) 
manuscripts  came  from  the  second  century  after 
Christ  and  are  children  of  the  Greek  (yellow) 
source.  From  the  Itala  came  the  Vulgate.  Thus 
along  the  Old  Testament  stream  we  can  journey 
to  the  second  century  after  Christ  and  feel  the 
touch  of  influences  reaching  back  into  the  dim 
past  in  the  Septuagint,  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch, 
and  the  Hebrew. 

Following  the  stream  of  the  New  Testament 
we  reach  about  the  same  goal,  the  second  century 
after  Christ.  The  Sinaitic  and  Vatican  manu¬ 
script  in  the  Greek  (red)  stream  lead  to  manu¬ 
scripts  of  the  fourth  century  A.  D.  which  were 
copied  from  manuscripts  of  the  second  century 
A.  D.  Through  the  Latin  Vulgate  and  the  Itala 
the  same  date  is  reached. 

From  this  point  written  records  fail  us  and  we 
enter  into  the  realm  of  tradition.  The  Chart  to 
the  right  shows  briefly  the  line  of  descent 
through  Irenaeus,  Justin  Martyr,  Papias,  and 
Polycarp.  Polycarp  was  a  pupil  of  John  the 
apostle  and  John  was  a  disciple  of  Jesus  Christ. 

The  all-important  question,  however,  is, 

Have  we  got  exactly  what  was  said  by  Jesus  Christ  and 
the  apostles  as  well  as  by  the  patriarchs  and  prophets,  law- 

[ns] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


giver  and  psalmists  or  only  their  thoughts  reinterpreted 
by  successive  generations? 

We  know  that  Ezra  and  those  who  followed 
gathered  together  the  fragments  that  came  down 
through  the  centuries.  What  liberties  they  took 
with  them  can  only  be  conjectured.  1  That  they 
combined  the  materials  and  gave  new  direction  to 
the  Law  is  unmistakable.  Isaiah  is  the  work  of 
more  than  one  man  and  Zechariah  of  several. 
Then  too  we  have  seen  the  freedom  exercised  by 
the  LXX  in  regard  to  what  was  Scripture  and 
noted  the  fact  that  the  Hebrew  (black)  and 
Greek  (yellow)  streams  are  different. 

When  we  come  to  Origen  we  have  the  account 
of  what  was  done  by  that  great  scholar  to  the 
manuscripts  in  his  possession.  He  took  the  Sep- 
tuagint  and  compared  it  with  the  Hebrew. 
Where  something  seemed  to  him  to  be  omitted  in 
the  Septuagint,  he  supplied  it  from  the  Hebrew. 
He  also  noted  what  he  thought  were  mistakes  or 
additions  to  the  Septuagint  text.  These  changes 
he  indicated  by  a  sign.  In  course  of  time  the 
sign  was  lost  or  forgotten  and  the  changes  in  the 
text  copied  as  genuine. 

Origen’s  work  is  lost  except  for  a  few  frag¬ 
ments.  Speaking  of  the  condition  of  the  text  of 
the  Gospels  in  his  day,  he  says : 

1  Sanday,  “  Inspiration,”  p.  240  ff.,  293-298. 

[116] 


THE  SALVATION  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES 


It  is  obvious  that  the  differences  between  the  copies  is 
considerable,  partly  from  the  carelessness  of  individual 
scribes,  partly  from  the  wicked  daring  of  some  in  correct¬ 
ing  what  is  written,  partly  also  from  [the  changes  made 
by]  those  who  add  or  remove  what  seems  good  to  them 
in  the  process  of  correction. 

Jerome  sought  to  get  hold  of  the  true  text  in 
his  Vulgate.  We  have  seen  that  he  faced  two 
different  sets  of  records  and  that  he  made  choice 
of  the  Hebrew  (black)  as  opposed  to  the  Greek 
(yellow).  Some  Roman  Catholics  insist  that  he 
made  a  wrong  choice.  Then  too  we  know  that 
Jerome’s  Vulgate  was  not  given  the  place  of 
honor  it  was  to  hold  for  one  hundred  and  fifty 
years.  In  this  period  copyists  would  select  parts 
of  the  Vulgate  and  parts  of  the  Itala  in  making 
up  their  Bibles.  We  noted  the  corrupt  condition 
of  the  text  of  the  Vulgate  calling  for  revision 
in  the  eighth  and  thirteenth  centuries.  At  some 
length  we  recounted  the  great  revisions  by  Pope 
Sixtus  V  and  Clement  VIII. 

The  history  of  the  present  Latin  Vulgate 
shows  that  it  is  the  result  of  a  choice  between 
varying  manuscripts  and  that  it  is  unsatisfactory 
to  the  Church  which  has  adopted  it  as  a  standard. 
The  Roman  Church  is  seeking  to  “  find  that 
which  was  lost,”  namely,  the  Latin  Vulgate  as  it 
left  the  hands  of  Jerome. 

When  we  take  up  the  Greek  and  other  manu- 

[  117] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


scripts  of  the  New  Testament  we  find  that  copy¬ 
ists  have  exercised  liberty  in  dealing  with  them. 
The  manuscripts  differ.  Insertions  have  been 
made.  In  the  Gospels,  words  have  been  put  into 
the  mouth  of  Jesus,  and  others.  A  slight  famil¬ 
iarity  with  the  Revised  Versions  will  give  a  good 
idea  of  this  fact.  Sixteen  verses  and  one  hun¬ 
dred  and  twenty-two  sentences  or  parts  of  sen¬ 
tences  have  been  omitted  and  ten  new  clauses  in¬ 
serted  in  the  Revised  New  Testament.  It  will 
be  helpful  to  the  reader  to  indicate  a  few. 

Take  i  John  5  :  7,  8:  “  In  heaven,  the  Father, 
the  Word,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  these  three 
are  one.  And  there  are  three  that  bear  witness 
in  earth.”  Here  is  a  question.  Are  these  words 
genuine?  The  weight  of  manuscript  evidence  is 
against  the  text,  hence  the  Revisers  regarded  it 
as  an  interpolation,  something  put  in  by  the  copy¬ 
ist.  For  this  reason  these  words  are  omitted 
from  the  Revised  Versions.  The  Sinaitic  and 
Vatican  manuscripts  do  not  have  the  words. 

Glance  at  the  Chart.  Note  the  Greek  text  at 
the  bottom  of  the  red  column.  It  is  Mark  16  :  8. 
This  means  that  Chapter  16  of  Mark’s  Gospel 
closes  with  verse  8  in  the  two  oldest  Greek  manu¬ 
scripts  of  the  New  Testament,  the  Sinaitic  and 
the  Vatican.  These  two  great  manuscripts  do 
not  have  verses  9-20  as  found  in  the  King  James 

[118] 


THE  SALVATION  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES 


Bible.  The  Revisers  did  not  omit  them  from  the 
Revised  Version,  but  as  honest  men  they  put  a 
space  between  verse  8  and  verses  9-20.  They 
further  placed  a  note  of  explanation  in  the  mar¬ 
gin  stating  the  facts. 

Nothing  that  the  Revisers  did  caused  more 
intensity  of  feeling.  Why?  Because  by  the 
insertion  of  a  space  between  verse  8  and  verses 
9-20  as  well  as  by  a  note  in  the  margin,  attention 
was  called  to  the  fact  that  this  part  of  Mark’s 
Gospel  was  of  doubtful  authority. 

Many  individuals  had  made  such  a  pronounce¬ 
ment  and  conservative  ones  too.  Dr.  John  A. 
Broadus  had  said 2  that  Mark  16  :  9-20  was 
“  too  doubtful  to  use  in  exposition  as  authorita¬ 
tive.”  But  whatever  opinion  the  individual 
might  hold,  it  was  different  when  the  Scriptures 
were  so  manipulated  as  to  give  reality  to  that 
opinion. 

This  particular  Scripture  contains  an  account 
of  Jesus’  command  as  to  baptism.  A  doctrine  is 
affected!  It  is  thus  apparent  that  to  call  atten¬ 
tion  to  a  fact  about  the  Scriptures  in  the  work  of 
revision  may  be  as  serious  a  thing  in  the  minds 
of  many  as  to  call  attention  to  a  fact  about  the 
sun  was  in  the  progress  of  astronomy.  Religion, 
invariably  conservative,  always  resents  change. 

2  Robertson,  “  Studies  In  Mark’s  Gospel,”  p.  130. 

[  119] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


Looking  back  through  the  centuries,  this  ques¬ 
tion  arises,  Was  there  ever  a  time  when  the  re¬ 
visers  of  Scripture  did  not  have  to  make  choice 
between  varying  texts  ?  The  English  and  Amer¬ 
ican  Revisers  as  well  as  those  of  the  King  James 
and  the  Vulgate  did,  likewise  Tyndale,  Jerome, 
and  Origen.  The  LXX  must  have  faced  the 
same  necessity,  for  the  Hebrew  and  the  Septua- 
gint  differ.  How  about  Ezra  and  the  authors  of 
the  oldest  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament  and 
Old  Testament?  Did  they  have  to  make  choice 
between  varying  records? 

And  when  we  leave  written  tradition  and  pass 
into  oral  tradition  both  in  the  Old  Testament  and 
the  New  Testament,  is  it  fair  to  assume  that 
choice  had  to  be  made  as  to  which  account 
seemed  the  more  trustworthy  ? 

If  then  each  step  has  been  the  resultant  of  a 
choice  among  varying  texts  or  traditions,  what 
assurance  have  we  of  the  authority  of  the  Book?3 
Who  can  vouch  for  its  truthfulness?  How  can 
we  know  the  Bible  is  the  word  of  God?  The 
Romanist  answers :  “  You  cannot.  You  must 
have  the  authority  of  the  Church  behind  the  Book 
to  assure  you  of  its  authority  and  truthfulness.” 
The  Protestant  refuses  to  accept  this  verdict  but 
has  no  positive  affirmation  of  his  own. 

•  Vedder,  “  Our  New  Testament,”  pp.  347-349- 

[  120] 


THE  SALVATION  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES 


Varying  answers  have  been  suggested.  The 
real  answer  is  this.  Only  that  can  be  accepted 
as  authoritative  for  religious  faith  which  proves 
itself  to  be  true  in  human  experience  or  which 
may  be  so  proved.  We  know  truth  in  the  Bible 
as  we  know  truth  in  any  other  realm.  God  made 
man  to  respond  to  truth  as  he  made  him  to  re¬ 
spond  to  light.  Truth  is  made  authoritative  by 
the  response  of  the  soul,  not  by  the  imposition  of 
an  organization  or  the  affirmations  of  a  book. 
Ability  gives  reality  to  responsibility. 

ii 

The  legacy  of  the  sacred  literature  of  both 
Jew  and  Christian  is  priceless.  It  contains  the 
garnered  nuggets  of  spiritual  experience  through 
the  centuries.  Ezra  felt  this  with  reference  to 
those  manuscripts  entrusted  to  his  care.  He 
sought  to  preserve  them  as  they  had  been  handed 
down.  The  Great  Sanhedrin  or  whoever  fol¬ 
lowed  in  the  work  accepted  the  trust  and  added 
other  records. 

Then  came  the  Talmudists  gathering  up  the 
traditional  oral  interpretations  of  the  Law  into 
the  Mishna  (second  century  A.  D.)  and  the  later 
interpretations  in  the  Gemara.  (Fourth  to  fifth 
century  A.  D. )  These  constitute  what  is  known 
as  the  Talmud. 


[  121  ] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


Two  elements  4  were  blended  in  this  work,  the 
Halachah  and  the  Hagadah.  The  Halachah 
dealt  with  the  Law.  It  was  an  attempt  to  make 
the  Law  fit  into  practical  life.  The  Hagadah  con¬ 
tained  the  legends,  those  anecdotes  and  sayings 
of  the  Scribes  used  to  illustrate  and  to  enforce 
the  Law. 

What  are  called  Targums  were  simply  para¬ 
phrases  or  the  conversion  of  the  Scriptures  into 
the  language  of  the  people.  At  first  the  Targums 
were  oral.  Later  they  were  put  into  writing.  In 
this  way  a  secondary  assistance  in  testing  the 
accuracy  of  the  Scripture  texts  has  come  down 
to  us. 

After  the  Talmudists  came  the  Massoretes. 
These  were  the  textual  critics  and  codifiers  of 
various  oral  traditions  as  to  correct  readings. 
Besides  committing  to  writing  these  traditional 
oral  readings  approved  as  correct,  they  added 
others.  Their  commentaries  were  storehouses  of 
information  as  to  the  language,  grammar,  and 
interpretation  of  the  Scriptures. 

Until  the  time  of  the  Massoretes,  the  Hebrew 
text  was  simply  a  succession  of  consonants.  The 
Massoretes  added  for  the  first  time  the  vowel- 
points  and  arranged  the  text  in  its  present  form — 

4  Schxirer,  “  The  Jewish  People  in  the  Time  of  Christ,”  II,  i,  pp. 
321-351* 


[  122] 


THE  SALVATION  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES 


Massorah  means  tradition.  The  Massoretes  held 
sway  from  the  sixth  to  the  tenth  century,  the 
Talmudists,  from  the  second  to  the  fifth  century. 

To  the  extreme  left  of  the  Chart  under  the 
word  Massoretes,  is  a  Hebrew  word,  trgiy. 
The  four  large  characters  are  the  consonants ;  the 
smaller  are  the  vowel-points  introduced  by  the 
Massoretes.  The  word  is  translated  “  ravens  ” 
and  is  found  in  i  Kings  17  :  6.  By  supplying 
other  vowels,  the  word  might  mean  “  Orebites  ” 
or  “  Arabians,”  for  the  consonants  in  all  three 
Hebrew  words  are  like.  The  Revisers  retained 
the  translation  “  ravens  ”  not  because  they  be¬ 
lieved  “  ravens  ”  carried  “  bread  and  flesh  to  Eli¬ 
jah  ”  but  because,  believing  in  the  fact  of 
divine  providence,  they  desired  to  preserve  the 
beautifully  picturesque  and  highly  imaginative 
language  of  the  Hebrews  in  describing  such 
providences. 

As  in  the  Hebrew  Church  we  noted  the  guar¬ 
dianship  of  the  Scriptures  on  the  part  of  the  Tal¬ 
mudists  and  the  Massoretes,  so  in  the  Christian 
Church  we  can  see  the  Traditionalists  and  the 
Textualists  and  their  colaborers  in  the  field  of 
literary  and  historical  criticism. 

The  Traditionalists  held  sway  until  the  Refor¬ 
mation.  Their  classic  period  was  from  the  fifth 
to  the  fifteenth  century.  They  hedged  the  Scrip- 

1 123] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


tures  about  with  traditional  ideals  and  subordi¬ 
nated  them  to  traditional  interpretations.  Au¬ 
thoritative  forms  of  belief  were  forged  out  by  a 
Church  that  was  evolving  slowly  into  a  Church 
of  authoritative  monks.  Lainez,  the  general  of 
the  Jesuits,  at  the  Council  of  Trent,  declared, 5 
“  Sheep  are  animals  destitute  of  reason,  and  in 
consequence  they  can  have  no  part  in  the  govern¬ 
ment  of  the  Church.”  The  sheep,  of  course, 
were  the  laity. 

Thus  the  divine  word  could  function  only 
through  an  ecclesiastical  institution.  The  infal¬ 
lible  Church  composed  of  infallible  monks  now 
set  up  the  claim  to  be  the  sole  interpreter  of  the 
word.  Apostolicity  was  the  magic  word  which 
gave  sanction  to  the  Traditionalist’s  claim.  He 
persuaded  himself  and  sought  to  persuade  others 
that  he  was  “  tenting  on  the  old  camp-ground.” 

By  1864  the  infallible  Church  had  yielded  to 
the  infallible  Pope.  Then,  as  Sabatier  has  said, 6 
“  The  infallibility  of  tradition  became  the  om¬ 
nipotence  of  the  hierarchy.”  Pius  IX  could  say, 
“  Tradition,  it  is  I,”  and  confirm  his  assertion 
by  declaring  on  his  own  authority  the  dogma  of 
the  Immaculate  Conception.  Tradition  passed 
into  a  flux.  Once  tradition  had  been  “  a  deposit 

*  Sarpi,  Hist.  Cone.  Trident.,  VII.,  p,  1053. 

0  “  Religions  of  Authority,”  p.  64. 

[  124] 


THE  SALVATION  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES 


of  truth.”  It  now  became  a  creative  inspiration 
that  might  at  any  moment  make  tradition. 

When  Jerome  revised  the  Vulgate,  tradition 
was  against  it.  In  the  succeeding  two  hundred 
years  no  bishop  of  Rome  had  discovered  it  to  be 
“  authentic.”  Gregory  the  Great  used  the  Itala 
and  the  Vulgate  indifferently  because  “  the  Apos¬ 
tolic  See  over  which  by  the  grace  of  God  he 
presides  uses  both.”  The  Council  of  Trent 
(1546)  waived  all  this  uncertainty.  The  Vul¬ 
gate  was  declared  to  be  “  authentic,”  made  an 
absolute  rule  of  faith,  and  confirmed  by  anathema. 
Westcott  says : 7 

This  fatal  decree,  in  which  the  Council,  harassed  by  the 
fear  of  lay  critics  and  “  grammarians,”  gave  a  new  aspect 
to  the  whole  question  of  the  Canon,  was  ratified  by  fifty- 
three  prelates,  among  whom  there  was  not  one  German, 
not  one  scholar  distinguished  for  historical  learning,  not 
one  who  was  fitted  by  special  study  for  the  examination 
of  a  subject  in  which  the  truth  could  only  be  determined 
by  the  voice  of  antiquity. 


Dr.  Hugh  Pope,  the  Romanist,  declares : 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  Tridentine  Fathers  had  only 
very  vague  ideas  as  to  the  labor  which  the  production  of 
such  a  revised  edition  (of  the  Vulgate)  would  involve. 
They  seem  to  have  thought  that  it  could  be  done  during 
the  Sessions  of  the  Council ! 8 

7  “  Canon  of  New  Testament,”  p.  478. 

8  Eccl.  Rev.,  October,  1911,  p.  437. 

[  125] 


K 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


The  Renaissance  and  the  Reformation  broke 
the  spell  of  traditionalism  but  left  the  Bible  in 
bondage  to  literalism.  Literalism  was  substituted 
for  traditionalism.  Protestantism  set  up  an  in¬ 
fallible  Book  in  opposition  to  an  infallible 
Church.  Mechanical  and  atomistic  conceptions 
were  applied  to  the  interpretation  of  the  Bible. 
Great  doctrinal  systems  were  built  up  on  sup¬ 
posedly  irrefragable  proof-texts.  The  struggle 
of  the  infallibles  was  a  desperate  struggle. 

In  the  midst  of  the  conflict,  the  Textualists 
arose.  They  studied  and  compared  the  Biblical 
texts,  discovering  a  great  number  of  variations 
in  the  New  Testament  manuscripts.  The  publica¬ 
tion  of  these  facts  produced  a  shock.  Protestant¬ 
ism  trembled  between  the  blows  of  the  Deists  and 
the  Roman  Catholics.  Both  cried  out  in  derision : 
“  Your  infallible  Book  has  lost  its  security. 
There  can  be  no  sure  authority  in  a  Book  of 
variations.” 

Out  of  this  anguish  of  spirit  over  the  Book 
arose  the  new  study  of  the  Scriptures.  From  the 
middle  of  the  eighteenth  century  to  the  middle 
of  the  nineteenth  century  the  mechanical  and 
atomistic  views  prevailed.  With  the  nineteenth 
century  came  the  organic  and  vital  conceptions 
of  life.  The  scientific  spirit  awoke  in  Biblical 
scholarship.  Lower  criticism  or  criticism  of  the 

[  126] 


THE  SALVATION  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES 


texts  of  Biblical  manuscripts  challenged  the 
attention  of  some  of  the  finest  scholars  of  the 
Church. 

If  the  earlier  Church  had  its  Origen  and 
Jerome,  and  the  Church  of  the  Reformation  its 
Erasmus  and  Ximenes,  the  modern  Church  has 
had  a  galaxy  of  great  names,  such  as  Tischen- 
dorf,  Tregelles,  Scrivener,  Westcott  and  Hort, 
to  mention  only  a  few. 

These  textual  scholars,  known  as  Lower  Crit¬ 
ics,  have  collected  over  three  thousand  manu¬ 
scripts  of  the  New  Testament,  compared  them, 
and  codified  their  variations.  The  variations 
already  discovered  number  about  one  hundred 
and  fifty  thousand,  of  which  only  about  four  hun¬ 
dred  affect  the  sense  of  the  Scriptures. 

A  few  of  the  more  noteworthy  of  these  varia¬ 
tions  which  affect  the  Revised  Versions  are  here 
indicated : 

1.  The  Doxology  of  the  Lord’s  Prayer,  Mat¬ 
thew  6  :  13.  (Omitted.) 

2.  Descent  of  Angel,  troubling  the  Pool  of 
Bethesda,  John  5  :  3,  4.  (Omitted.) 

3.  The  Woman  taken  in  Adultery,  John  7  : 
53  to  8  :  11.  [Bracketed.] 

4.  The  conclusion  of  Mark’s  Gospel,  Mark  16  : 
9-20.  ( Spaced. ) 


[  127] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


5.  The  Baptismal  Confession  of  the  Eunuch. 
Acts  8  :  37.  (Omitted.) 

6.  The  three  heavenly  witnesses,  1  John  5  : 
7,  8.  (Omitted.) 

Some  of  these  passages  are  omitted  in  the 
Revised  Versions.  Some  are  put  in  brackets  or 
spaced  and  a  marginal  note  set  opposite  stating 
the  facts.  No  infallibility  is  claimed.  The  Re¬ 
visers  simply  gave  expression  to  their  judg¬ 
ment. 

Following  in  the  wake  of  the  lower  or  textual 
critic  came  the  Higher  Critic  applying  to  the 
study  of  the  Scriptures  the  methods  of  literary 
and  historical  investigation.  Never  was  such  a 
flood  of  light  thrown  upon  the  books  of  the  Bible. 
For  the  first  time  in  Christian  history  the  life  and 
times  of  Jesus  Christ  were  really  studied.  As  a 
result,  the  life  of  Christ  was  written.  Lives  of 
Christ  multiplied.  Biblical  theology  was  born. 
The  books  of  the  Bible  were  subjected  to  critical 
investigation  as  to  style,  contents,  time,  place,  and 
authorship.  Genuineness  became  the  new  shib¬ 
boleth  and  not  apostolicity  or  usage  as  in  the 
Middle  and  early  ages. 

With  the  development  of  vital  conceptions,  a 
new  ideal  has  arisen  as  a  test  of  Scripture.  Gen¬ 
uineness,  apostolicity,  and  usage  have  yielded 

[128] 


THE  SALVATION  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES 


to  the  ideal  of  experience.  Doctor  Nash  thus 
states  it : 9 

For,  as  the  Bible  defines  revelation,  it  is  God’s  gift  of 
Himself  and  His  plan  of  Salvation — the  gift  of  saving 
unity  and  cleansing  hopes — conveyed  through  the  experi¬ 
ence  of  men  who  met  God  in  the  ways  of  common  life. 

This  is  in  harmony  with  Luther  in  his  “  Let¬ 
ters  On  the  Study  of  Theology  ”  : 

My  dear  Friend,  the  best  study  of  divinity  is  the  study 
of  the  Bible,  and  the  best  reading  of  the  Divine  Book  is 
human.  The  Bible  must  be  read  in  a  human  way,  for  it 
was  written  by  men  for  men.  The  more  humanly  we  read 
God’s  word,  the  nearer  do  we  approach  the  purpose  of  its 
Author,  who  created  man  in  his  own  image,  and  deals 
toward  us  humanly  in  all  these  works  and  blessings  where 
he  manifests  himself  to  us  as  God. 

Dr.  John  Watson  adds  his  testimony, 10  “  It  is 
not  a  book  written  in  heaven  and  dropped  down 
from  the  clouds,  it  is  the  revelation  of  God 
through  human  experience.” 

The  Bible,  therefore,  has  become  for  this  ag* 
something  genuinely  real.  It  has  become  for  us 
a  Book  of  Divine  experience. 

#  “  Hist,  of  Higher  Criticism,”  p.  148. 

10  “  Doctrines  of  Grace,”  p.  129. 


[  129] 


XIV 


THE  PERSISTENT  PROBLEM  OF 
THE  BIBLE 

i 

We  have  seen  that  the  problem  of  judgment  or 
choice  has  been  prominent  from  the  beginning 
whether  in  relation  to  oral  or  written  tradition. 
That  problem  has  been  continuous  and  still  per¬ 
sists.  The  passion  of  scholarship  is  to  solve  this 
problem.  It  seeks  to  discover  the  true  text  of 
Scripture,  centralize  the  affections  of  the  Church 
upon  one  version,  and  lead  humanity  into  unity 
of  faith  and  of  life. 

What  was  it  that  Ezra  sought?  Did  he  not 
seek  to  bring  unity  and  order  into  the  chaos  of 
texts?  For  what  did  Origen  toil  twenty-eight 
years  unless  it  were  to  resolve  Scriptural  differ¬ 
ences  into  a  unity?  What  was  the  purpose  of 
Pope  Damasus  in  inspiring  Jerome  to  the  pro¬ 
duction  of  the  Vulgate?  Was  it  not  to  secure  an 
authoritative  standard  of  Scripture?  And  was 
it  not  the  ineffectual  rivalry  of  three  English 
Bibles  that  led  to  the  King  James  Version? 
The  resolving  of  differences  was  the  purpose  of 
the  English  and  American  Standard  Revisions. 

[  130] 


THE  PERSISTENT  PROBLEM  OF  THE  BIBLE 


What  is  the  situation  today?  Look  at  the 
Chart!  Note  the  colors!  Black,  yellow,  purple, 
blue,  red.  Each  color  represents  a  Bible  held  sacred 
by  great,  organized  masses  of  humanity.  The 
differences  of  the  centuries  are  perpetuated. 
Great  battalions  are  arrayed  in  their  defense. 
Here  are  five  Bibles  appealing  for  the  affections 
of  the  peoples,  two  Hebrew  and  three  Christian. 
Limiting  our  view  to  the  three  Christian  Bibles, 
they  may  be  classified  as  follows : 

1.  The  Greek  Catholic  Church  holds  to  a  com¬ 
bination  of  the  Greek  Old  Testament  (yellow) 
and  the  Greek  New  Testament  (red). 

2.  The  Roman  Catholic  holds  to  the  Latin 
Vulgate  (purple)  which  is  chiefly  a  combination 
of  the  Hebrew  (black)  and  the  Greek  (red). 

3.  The  Protestant  holds  to  the  combination  of 
that  which  seems  to  him  to  be  the  best  in  the  He¬ 
brew  (black),  Greek  (yellow),  Latin  (purple), 
and  Greek  (red)  as  well  as  various  other  sources 
and  the  English  (blue). 

But  in  the  English  (blue)  at  this  time  there 
are  three  Bibles  before  the  Protestant  people, 
the  King  James,  the  English  Revised,  and  the 
American  Standard  Revised.  Then  too  the 
Roman  Catholics  have  two,  the  Douay  and  the 
Westminster  Bibles. 

There  are,  therefore,  among  Christians  of  the 

[  131 1 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


West  three  Bibles  representing  the  three  great 
branches  of  the  Church,  Greek  Catholic,  Roman 
Catholic,  and  Protestant.  Three  Bibles  likewise 
separate  the  Christians  of  the  East.  The  Syrians 
have  the  Peshito,  which  omits  Second  Peter,  Sec¬ 
ond  and  Third  John,  Jude,  and  Revelation.  The 
Old  Egyptian  or  Coptic  is  in  two  dialects,  each 
based  on  different  texts.  The  Armenians  have 
two  books  in  their  Old  Testament  and  two  books 
in  the  New  Testament,  found  in  few  other 
Bibles.  To  the  Old  Testament  are  added  “  The 
History  of  Joseph  and  Assenath  ”  and  “  The  Tes¬ 
timony  of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs  to  the  New 
Testament,  “  The  Epistle  of  the  Corinthians  to 
St.  Paul  ”  and  “  The  Third  Epistle  of  St.  Paul 
to  the  Corinthians.”  These  do  not  appear  in  their 
printed  Bibles. 

Then  too  the  Sinaitic  Manuscript  contains  two 
books  not  included  in  our  Bibles,  “  The  Epistle 
of  Barnabas”  and  “The  Shepherd  of  Hermas.” 
And  the  Alexandrian  Manuscript  has  “  The 
Epistle  of  Clement  of  Rome  to  the  Corinthians  ” 
and  a  fragment  of  another. 

We  recall  also  that  the  Septuagint  differs  from 
the  Hebrew.  The  book  of  Jeremiah  in  the  Greek 
is  only  about  seven-eighths  as  long  as  that  in  the 
Hebrew.  Thousands  of  variations  occur  in  the 
manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament. 

[  132] 


THE  PERSISTENT  PROBLEM  OF  THE  BIBLE 


Thus  it  would  appear  that  not  one  Bible  but 
many  Bibles  were  born  among  Christians.  Each 
great  people  came  into  possession  of  a  Bible 
stamped  with  its  own  personality.  The  Bibles 
of  the  East  differ  from  the  Bibles  of  the  West. 
And  the  Bibles  of  the  East  and  the  Bibles  of  the 
West  differ  severally  among  themselves.  There 
is  no  one  uniform  Bible  to  be  found  among 
Christians  of  any  land  or  tongue.  Unity  in  spirit 
rather  than  uniformity  in  content  or  letter  seems 
to  have  been  the  determining  motive.  When 
Ulfilas  gave  the  Bible  to  the  warlike  Goths  he  is 
said  to  have  purposely  omitted  the  books  of 
Kings  and  Chronicles. 

The  question  is  pertinent.  Since  the  Church 
never  had  one  single  Book1  for  its  faith  will  it 
ever  secure  one?  And  if  so,  what  would  such  a 
Bible  represent?  The  Roman  Catholic  Church  is 
seeking  to  get  the  Vulgate  as  it  left  the  hands  of 
Jerome.  It  holds  that  “  is  essential  as  a  basis  for 
any  critical  edition  of  the  present  authentic  and 
official  Latin  Bible.”  This  “  official  Latin  Bible  ” 
is  the  Clementine  which  they  say  was  “  hastily 
prepared  under  pressing  circumstances,”  “  never 
meant  to  be  final.”  Finality  is  sought,  one  text 
for  all. 

The  Roman  Catholic  sets  forth  this  ideal  in 

1  Gregory,  **  Canon  and  Text  of  the  New  Testament,”  p.  286. 

[  133] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


what  sounds  very  much  like  a  new  type  of  Prot¬ 
estantism.  Here  are  the  words : 2 

We  are  accustomed  to  speak  of  the  Catholic  Bible,  the 
Protestant  Bible,  and  the  rest.  There  is  and  can  be  only 
one  Bible,  and  any  success  in  establishing  the  earliest, 
purest  wording  of  it  must  necessarily  be  a  great  step  toward 
that  Christian  unity  we  all  so  devoutly  hope  and  pray  for! 


Suppose  such  a  Bible  could  be  secured,  what 
would  it  represent?  A  choice.  It  would  simply 
be  a  judgment  based  on  the  evidence  available  at 
the  time  the  judgment  was  rendered.  Such  judg¬ 
ment  must  ever  be  subject  to  revision.  The  his¬ 
tory  of  the  Bible  is  witness  to  this  fact.  The  only 
other  alternative  would  be  to  follow  the  course 
of  the  Koran  and  destroy  all  not  conforming  or 
to  pass  through  an  experience  such  as  led  to  the 
Massoretic  Text. 

But  again — Did  such  a  Book  ever  exist? 
Scholarship  for  centuries  has  been  aiming  after 
a  “  true  text  ”  of  Scripture  or  as  the  Roman 
Catholic  expresses  it,  “  one  Bible  and  one  Bible 
only.”  “  The  object  of  textual  criticism,”  says 
Dr.  J.  O.  F.  Murray  in  Hastings’  Dictionary  of 
the  Bible,  “  is  to  recover  the  ipsissima  verba  of 
the  documents  of  which  the  New  Testament  is 
composed,”  the  assumption  being  that  all  the 

2  “  The  Revision  of  the  Latin  Version  of  the  Bible,”  a  Roman 
Catholic  leaflet. 


[134] 


THE  PERSISTENT  PROBLEM  OF  THE  BIBLE 


copies  of  the  different  books  we  possess,  wheher 
in  Greek  or  in  translation,  are  capable  of  being 
traced  back  in  the  last  resort  to  one  and  the  same 
original. 

Looking  at  the  Chart  and  following  the 
streams  back  to  their  sources,  have  we  any  evi¬ 
dence  of  a  single  source  ?  Doctor  Murray  doubts 
it,  and  the  facts  seem  to  justify  his  doubt.  Once 
the  judgment  was  in  favor  of  an  original  Mat¬ 
thew  as  the  basis  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels;  now 
the  judgment  is  for  an  original  Mark.  Who  can 
say  that  such  judgment  is  final?  As  for  Ezra 
and  those  who  followed,  who  can  say  what  they 
had?  That  the  Hebrew  (black)  and  Greek  (yel¬ 
low)  streams  differ  is  presumptive  evidence  that 
they  had  to  pass  judgment  on  the  worth  of  vary¬ 
ing  documents  and  reports.  And  this  method 
must  have  prevailed  in  the  matter  of  varying 
oral  traditions. 

One  thing  is  certain.  We  come  to  a  point  in 
this  process  where  the  judgment  becomes  final, 
the  choice  becomes  determinative.  The  original 
speakers  are  all  dead.  What  their  successors  say 
they  said  is  all  that  remains.  The  original  manu¬ 
scripts  likewise  are  all  lost.  The  earliest  copies 
shared  the  same  fate.  But  who  can  say  that  they 
were  in  agreement  ?  What  remains  varies 
greatly.  No  one  in  two  thousand  years  from 

[135] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


Abram  to  Ezra  or  from  Ezra  to  the  Council  of 
Jamnia  A.  D.  90  was  able  to- pass  on  “  one  Bible 
and  one  Bible  only.”  And  no  one  in  two  thou¬ 
sand  years  from  Jesus  to  the  present  has  been  able 
to  discover  that  “one  Bible  and  one  Bible  only.” 

The  written  tradition  of  the  New  Testament  is 
a  partial  witness  to  the  oral  tradition.  What  re¬ 
mains  of  the  literature  of  the  Christian  people*  is 
an  indication  of  the  variety  and  diversity  of 
opinion  and  ideal  that  prevailed  in  oral  tradition. 
Only  the  oral  must  have  been  far  more  varied 
and  diversified  than  the  written. 

By  the  middle  of  the  second  century  oral  tradi¬ 
tion  began  to  yield  its  supremacy  to  written  tradi¬ 
tion.  The  books  of  the  New  Testament  began  to 
be  set  up  as  of  equal  authority  with  those  of  the 
Old  Testament  for  reading  in  the  synagogues. 
This  was  the  result  of  a  gradual  process  of  devel¬ 
opment.  It  was  not  so  at  first.  Time,  experience, 
and  reverence  for  the  memorials  of  the  past  were 
factors. 

An  age  that  was  to  come  was  to  declare  that  to 
be  Scripture  which  at  the  first  had  been  held  only 
in  esteem.  This  has  often  happened  in  history. 
The  Council  of  Trent  did  it  with  the  Apocrypha 
in  the  sixteenth  century  and  the  later  Reformers 
did  it  with  the  Hebrew  letters  and  vowel-points 
in  the  seventeenth  century. 

[136] 


THE  PERSISTENT  PROBLEM  OF  THE  BIBLE 


The  Old  Testament  and  the  New  Testament 
stand  alike  on  the  same  pedestal  of  traditional 
exaltation.  When  Ezra  and  those  who  followed 
him  gathered  the  books  together,  the  Law  was  set 
apart  as  of  special  sanctity.  It  could  not  be  bound 
up  with  the  other  books  on  a  basis  of  equality. 
The  Hagiographa  were  regarded  as  altogether 
subordinate.  This  same  idea  prevailed  later  with 
reference  to  the  Apocrypha  of  the  Old  Testament 
and  the  disputed  books  of  the  New  Testament. 3 

As  time  passed  a'  special  sanctity  of  inspiration 
was  imposed  upon  them  all,  and  they  were  all  set 
apart  from  all  other  books.  A  line  of  separation 
was  drawn.  Men  declared  that  on  one  side  of 
that  line  you  could  see  God  at  work.  By  means  of 
such  a  decree  on  the  part  of  a  later  generation, 
the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  Hagiographa 
were  gathered  together  as  a  unit;  the  disputed 
books  of  the  New  Testament  were  bound  up  with 
the  undisputed,  and  the  Apocrypha  were  added 
to  the  list  of  books  of  Scripture. 

Standing  at  this  arbitrary  line  of  demarcation, 
the  Jews  said,  “  Here  prophecy  ceased.”  The 
Christian  affirmed,  “  Apostolicity  shall  be  a 
finality.”  The  Roman  and  Greek  Catholic  de¬ 
clared,  “  The  Apocrypha  shall  be  exalted  to  the 
rank  of  Scripture.”  The  Protestant  had  no  voice 

8  Hastings,  Diet,  of  Bible,  Vol.  I,  p.  118. 

1 137] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


of  authority,  nor  has  he  such  voice  today.  He  has 
a  formal  list  of  books  but  cannot  tell  just  how  he 
got  them  nor  just  why  he  keeps  them  all.  The 
Protestant  does  not  like  to  confess  that  he  is  as 
subservient  to  tradition  as  Jerome,  Augustine,  or 
Erasmus,  but  the  fact  remains  that  he  is.  He 
allows  the  weight  of  tradition  to  overbalance  the 
weight  of  his  own  judgment.  Like  Luther,  the 
Protestant  has  his  own  opinion  about  the  various 
books  of  the  Canon.  But  he  keeps  them  all  in  The 
Book  even  though  he  rejects  some  of  them  in  his 
heart. 


ii 

As  we  turn  the  pages  of  history  the  statement 
that  “  There  is  one  Bible  and  one  Bible  only  ”  is 
seen  to  be  an  ideal  of  the  imagination  rather  than 
a  reality.  A  rapid  survey  of  the  facts  will  make 
this  apparent. 

In  the  second  century,  Clement  of  Rome  spoke 
with  equal  veneration  of  the  “  blessed  Paul  ”  and 
the  “  blessed  Judith.”  Justin  Martyr  placed  the 
book  of  the  prophet  Hystaspes  on  the  same  level 
with  the  Sibylline  Books  and  the  books  of  the  Old 
Testament.  He  is  said  never  to  have  quoted  the 
New  Testament  books  as  Scripture.  With  Dio¬ 
nysius  of  Corinth,  the  Gospels  were  regarded  as 
on  a  par  with  the  Old  Testament,  and  Theophilus 

[138] 


THE  PERSISTENT  PROBLEM  OF  THE  BIBLE 


of  Antioch  spoke  of  John  as  the  “  inspired 
prophet.”  The  Muratorian  Canon  closed  with 
the  Apocalypse  of  Peter. 

Irenaeus  quoted  as  Scripture  the  Epistle  of 
Clement  and  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas  as  well  as 
Wisdom  and  Baruch.  He  ignored  Hebrews, 
James,  Jude,  Second  Peter,  Second  and  Third 
John.  Tertullian  put  Hebrews,  Jude,  and  the 
Shepherd  of  Hermas  in  a  second  class,  but  Enoch 
he  regarded  as  “  prophetic  Scripture  ”  together 
with  Wisdom,  Ecclesiasticus,  and  Baruch. 

Clement  of  Alexandria  exalted  as-  Scripture  the 
Shepherd  of  Hermas,  Epistle  of  Barnabas, 
Epistle  of  Clement  of  Rome  to  the  Corinthians, 
the  Apocalypse  and  Preaching  of  Peter,  Gospel 
of  the  Hebrews,  Gospel  of  the  Egyptians,  to¬ 
gether  with  Baruch,  Tobias,  Wisdom,  Judith, 
Song  of  the  Three  Children,  and  Ecclesiasticus. 
Cyprian  stood  for  the  Scriptural  value  of  Wis¬ 
dom,  Baruch,  and  Tobias. 

A  similar  state  of  opinion  is  found  in  the  third 
century.  Origen,  the  great  scholar  of  the  early 
Church,  cited  as  “  the  Word  of  God,”  Epistle  of 
Clement,  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  Shepherd  of  Her¬ 
mas,  as  well  as  the  Story  of  Susanna,  Bel  and 
the  Dragon,  Song  of  Three  Children,  additions 
to  Esther,  Judith,  Tobias,  Wisdom,  Ecclesiasti¬ 
cus,  and  Maccabees. 


1 139] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


Views  in  the  fourth  century  were  equally  at 
variance.  The  great  historian,  Eusebius,  re¬ 
vealed  the  uncertainty.  Constantine,  the  Em¬ 
peror,  authorized  him  to  prepare  fifty  copies  of 
the  Scriptures.  What  choice  of  books  he  made  is 
not  known.  But  whatever  choice  he  made  must 
have  had  great  influence  in  the  East.  If  Eusebius 
did  as  Jerome  did  later,  his  list  of  books  did  not 
conform  to  his  personal  judgment.  For  Jerome’s 
commentaries  often  contradict  the  text  of  the 
Vulgate,  and  some  books  that  found  a  place  in 
the  Vulgate  were  rejected  at  the  bar  of  Jerome’s 
reason. 

The  Codex  Claromontanus  contained  the 
Epistle  of  Barnabas,  Shepherd  of  Hermas,  Acts 
of  Paul,  and  Apocalypse  of  Peter.  Cyril  of  Jeru¬ 
salem  did  not  recognize  the  Apocalypse. 

Athanasius  (365)  was  the  first  great  leader  to 
attempt  to  form  a  Canon  of  Scripture.  Pie  dis¬ 
tinguished  between  the  Apocryphal  and  Canonical 
books  but  classified  Esther  among  the  Apocry¬ 
phal.  In  practise,  however,  Athanasius  quoted 
Judith  with  the  words  “  the  Scripture  said,”  so 
also  Baruch  and  Wisdom.  Ecclesiasticus  was 
introduced  with  “  what  is  said  by  the  Holy 
Spirit.” 

Gregory  Nazianzen  omitted  Esther  and  the 
Apocalypse.  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  rejected 

1 140] 


THE  PERSISTENT  PROBLEM  OF  THE  BIBLE 


James  and  the  other  Catholic  Epistles  as  well  as 
Canticles  and  Chronicles.  John  Chrysostom  did 
not  acknowledge  the  Apocalypse  or  the  four 
smaller  Catholic  Epistles  but  set  up  as  Scripture 
Wisdom,  Baruch,  and  Ecclesiasticus. 

The  ^Ethiopic  Church  of  Abyssinia  received 
the  Apocrypha  and  the  book  of  Enoch  mentioned 
in  Jude  together  with  Fourth  Esdras,  Vision  of 
Isaiah,  Jubilees,  and  Assenath. 

The  Council  of  Laodicea  (363)  rejected  the 
Apocrypha  and  the  Apocalypse. 

East  and  West  were  in  opposition  on  certain 
books.  The  East  rejected  the  Apocrypha;  the 
West  accepted.  The  East  generally  received  He¬ 
brews  and  refused  the  Apocalypse.  The  West 
accepted  the  Apocalypse  and  rejected  Hebrews. 

The  Council  of  Carthage  (397)  included  the 
Apocrypha  in  the  list  o-f  Old  Testament  Books 
and  the  Apocalypse  in  the  list  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment.  Hilary  of  Poitiers  and  Ambrose  of  Milan 
used  a  number  of  Apocryphal  books  as  Scripture. 
So  also  did  Innocent  I. 

In  the  Middle  Ages  the  Epistle  of  the  Laodi- 
ceans  was  circulated  as  Scripture.  It  passed  from 
the  Vulgate  into  the  German  and  Romance  trans¬ 
lations  and  was  considered  authentic  down  even 
to  the  invention  of  printing. 

John  of  Damascus  put  Ezra  and  Esther  in  an 

t  hi  ] 


L 


THE  BIRTH  QF  THE  BIBLE 


appendix  to  the  Old  Testament  and  classified  the 
eighty-five  canons  of  the  Apostles  with  the  twen¬ 
ty-seven  books  of  the  New  Testament.  Niceph- 
orus  of  Constantinople  omitted  Esther  from  the 
Old  Testament  and  the  Apocalypse  from  the  New 
Testament.  Down  to  the  close  of  the  Middle 
Ages  Rome  had  made  no  pronouncement  on  the 
Canon.  Jerome’s  Vulgate  was  used,  and  the  con¬ 
fusion  of  Jerome  followed  in  those  who  used  it. 

The  intellectual  uncertainty  and  servile  submis¬ 
sion  that  found  expression  in  Jerome  and  Augus¬ 
tine  were  seen  in  Erasmus  at  the  time  of  the 
Reformation.  Erasmus  had  his  doubts  about 
many  books  but  yielded  to  tradition  and  the 
authority  of  the  Church.  Cardinal  Ximenes 
separated  the  Apocryphal  from  the  Canonical 
books  in  the  Complutensian.  Polyglot.  Cardinal 
Cajetan  cited  Jerome  as  authority  for  remov¬ 
ing  the  Canonical  from  the  uncanonical  books 
and  for  doubting  the  authenticity  of  Hebrews, 
James,  Second  Peter,  Second  and  Third  John 
and  Jude. 

The  hardening  influence  of  tradition  and  a 
prophecy  of  future  bitterness  manifested  itself 
in  the  decree  of  the  Synod  of  Sens  (1528),  pro¬ 
nouncing  all  “  schismatical  and  heretical  who 
deny  the  decision  of  the  Council  of  Carthage.” 
The  Council  of  Trent  (1546)  followed  in  the 

[  142] 


THE  PERSISTENT  PROBLEM  OF  THE  BIBLE 


same  spirit,  declaring  all  books  in  the  Latin  Vul¬ 
gate  of  equal  and  divine  authority  and  anathe¬ 
matizing  any  who  refused  to  accord  to  them 
“  equal  veneration  and  reverence  ”  with  tradition. 
In  the  original  Clementine  Vulgate  (1592)  Third 
Esdras  and  the  Prayer  of  Manasseh  were  included 
but  apart  from  the  Canonical  books  because  they 
were  found  in  some  Latin  Bibles  and  were  quoted 
by  some  Fathers.  The  Vatican  Council  (1870) 
confirmed  the  decree  of  Trent. 

At  the  Council  of  Jerusalem  (1672)  the  East¬ 
ern  church  followed  the  West  in  accepting  the 
Apocrypha  as  Scripture.  These  decisions  re¬ 
moved  the  Canon  of  Scripture  from  the  test  of 
history  and  made  the  authority  of  the  Church 
determinative. 

That  exceptions  were  taken  to  these  declara¬ 
tions  of  Trent  and  Jerusalem  is  shown  by  the 
Russian  Catechism  of  1839  which  excluded  the 
Apocrypha.  The  Dominican,  Sixtus  of  Sienna 
(1566),  also  affirmed  that  books  once  regarded 
by  the  Fathers  as  Apocryphal  were  now  decreed 
as  “  having  irrefragable  authority.”  He,  there¬ 
fore,  placed  in  a  second  class  Esther,  Tobias, 
Judith,  Baruch,  Epistle  of  Jeremiah,  Wisdom, 
Ecclesiasticus,  Story  of  Susanna,  Bel  and  the 
Dragon,  Song  of  the  Three  Children,  First  and 
Second  Maccabees,  Mark  16  :  9-20;  Luke  22  : 

[143] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


43,  44 ;  John  8  :  i-i  i ;  Hebrews,  the  five  Catholic 
Epistles,  and  the  Apocalypse.  This  attitude, 
however,  has  found  little  expression  in  the  Ro¬ 
man  Church,  but  the  English  and  American  Re¬ 
visions  have  confirmed  the  judgment  of  the  Do¬ 
minican  Sixtus  in  a  number  of  changes  in  the 
text. 

The  Reformers  took  an  opposite  course  from 
Rome.  Having  refused  to  grant  that  Church  the 
right  to  make  dogma,  they  refused  her  the  right 
to  determine  the  Canon. 

Luther  placed  the  Apocrypha  between  the  Old 
Testament  and  the  New  Testament,  but  he  dis¬ 
liked  Esther  and  Second  Maccabees.  “  Job,”  said 
he,  “  may  have  thought  but  did  not  pronounce 
these  discourses.  A  man  does  not  speak  thus 
when  he  is  tried.”  As  to  Moses,  said  he: 

Moses  is  dead;  his  rule  went  out  when  Christ  came.  He 
is  of  no  further  service  here.  .  .  We  are  willing  to  regard 
him  as  a  teacher,  but  we  will  not  regard  him  as  our  law¬ 
giver,  unless  he  agree  with  the  New  Testament  and  the 
laws  of  nature. 

Luther,  furthermore,  put  at  the  end  of  the  New 
Testament  James,  Jude,  Hebrews,  and  the  Apoca¬ 
lypse.  It  was  his  judgment  that  if  one  had  John, 
First  John,  Romans,  Galatians,  and  Ephesians, 
he  had  “  the  books  which  shew  thee  Christ,  and 
teach  all  which  it  is  needful  and  blessed  for  thee 


1 144] 


THE  PERSISTENT  PROBLEM  OF  THE  BIBLE 


to  know,  even  if  you  never  see  or  hear  any  other 
book  or  any  other  doctrine.”  4 

Zwingli  rejected  the  Apocalypse  and  (Ecolam- 
padius  placed  on  a  lower  level  the  Apocalypse, 
James,  Jude,  Second  Peter,  Second  and  Third 
John.  He  likewise  regarded  the  Apocryphal 
books  as  of  less  value  than  the  Canonical. 

A  hardening  process  set  in  with  the  later  Re¬ 
formers.  Tradition  once  more  imposed  its  heavy 
hand.  A  rigid  idea  of  inspiration  was  introduced. 
The  Consensus  Helveticus  declared  that  the  He¬ 
brew  consonants  and  vowel-points  were  divinely 
inspired  and  an  integral  part  of  the  Canon.  The 
Westminster  Confession  (1648)  pronounced  the 
Apocrypha  to  be  not  divinely  inspired  and,  there¬ 
fore,  no  part  of  the  Canon  of  Scripture. 

Dr.  Caspar  Rene  Gregory  sums  up  the  situation 
so  far  as  the  New  Testament  is  concerned  in  these 
words : 5 

Thus  everything  was  slurred  over.  The  seven  disputed 
books  had  become  indisputable.  From  that  day  to  this  the 
questioning  of  the  authenticity  of  one  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  books  has  even  in  Protestant  circles  called  for  the 
Anathema  set  by  the  Council  of  Trent  upon  that  crime. 

With  the  eighteenth  century  Cocceius  intro¬ 
duced  the  idea  of  historical  investigation  and  the 

*  Westcott,  “  Canon  of  New  Testament,"  p.  481. 

6  “  Canon  and  Text  of  New  Testament,"  p.  290. 

[  145  ] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


gradual  development  of  divine  revelation.  Luther 
had  made  the  test  of  the  books  to  rest  upon  the 
internal  content,  Did  they  set  forth  the  evangelical 
faith?  Calvin  had  set  up  as  a  standard,  the  in¬ 
ternal  witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  the  truth. 
Pietism  revived  this  ideal  of  an  internal  witness 
of  the  Spirit  but  despised  science.  Rationalism 
turned  to  subjectivism.  Semler  broke  the  spell  of 
tradition  and  literalism  by  an  appeal  to  fact. 

The  nineteenth  century  marked  a  new  birth  of 
freedom.  A  distinguished  scholar  of  the  last 
quarter  of  the  century  closed  his  book  on  “  The 
History  of  the  Canon  ”  with  these  words 6  : 
“  The  question  of  the  canon  no  longer  consists 
in  the  problem  of  drawing  up  a  list  of  books: 
that  conception  has  had  its  day.”  Another  closed 
his  work  on  “  The  Canon  of  the  Bible  ”  thus : 7 

Can  this  aggregation  of  the  Apocrypha  over  against 
Hagiographa  serve  the  purpose  of  a  just  estimate?  Hardly 
so :  for  some  of  the  latter,  such  as  Esther  and  Ecclesiastes, 
cannot  be  put,  above  Wisdom,  First  Maccabees,  Judith, 
Baruch,  or  Ecclesiasticus.  The  doctrine  of  immortality, 
clearly  expressed  in  the  Book  of  Wisdom,  is  not  in  Eccle¬ 
siastes  ;  neither  is  God  once  named  in  the  Book  of  Esther. . . 
The  history  of  First  Maccabees  is  more  credible  than 
Esther.  It  is  therefore  misleading  to  mark  off  all  the 
Apocryphal  works  as  human  and  all  the  canonical  ones  as 
divine. 

6  Reuss,  “  Hist,  of  Canon,”  p.  404. 

7  S.  Davidson,  “  Canon  of  the  Bible,”  p.  26 2. 

[146] 


THE  PERSISTENT  PROBLEM  OF  THE  BIBLE 


Such  ideals  necessarily  imply  different  stand¬ 
ards  of  value  in  books  or  parts  of  books  and  opens 
wide  the  door  for  a  reaffirmation  of  the  original 
ideal  of  a  test  of  value  by  means  of  use.  This 
brings  to  light  a  great  truth  so  often  obscured  and 
so  frequently  forgotten.  There  can  be  no  closed 
Canon  in  experience. 

The  effort  to  shut  God  in  some  particular  col¬ 
lection  of  books  and  to  bind  man’s  soul  to  that 
collection  and  to  that  collection  only  has  been 
productive  of  conflict  and  confusion  in  the  church 
and  in  the  world.  It  arose  out  of  a  false  ideal 
and  a  fancied  necessity  as  has  the  building  of 
every  Tower  of  Babel  from  the  first  and  can  only 
end  in  failure  and  disappointment.  The  Chris¬ 
tian  has  as  deep  need  to  be  delivered  from  Bib- 
liolatry  as  did  the  Hebrew  from  idolatry. 

Not  exclusion  but  inclusion  is  the  law  of  the 
Divine  Spirit  of  Truth.  The  spirit  of  man  may 
be  directed  to  certain-  conclusions  and  appealed 
to  for  a  favorable  judgment.  The  spirit  of  man 
can  never  be  bound  irrevocably  and  unalterably  to 
any  selection  of  the  spiritual  treasures  of  Hebrew 
or  of  Christian.  All  that  exists  exists  for  all  in 
every  age  and  in  every  place.  The  inalienable 
birthright  of  the  human  soul  is  the  right  to  pos¬ 
sess  and  to  utilize  all  of  life  and  all  of  the  achieve¬ 
ments  of  life.  “  All  are  yours,”  said  Paul. 

[  147] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


We  come  therefore  to  the  consideration  of  the 
question  relative  to  the  existence  of  “  one  Bible 
and  one  Bible  only.”  In  the  light  of  the  facts 
presented  we  affirm  that  neither  in  written  nor  in 
oral  tradition  is  there  any  evidence  to  show  that 
such  a  Bible  ever  did  exist.  There  is  little  evidence 
that  gives  any  ground  for  hope  that  such  a  Bible 
ever  will  exist.  It  is  not  clear  that  God  ever  meant 
to  endow  humanity  with  such  a  Bible.  The  spiri¬ 
tual  achievements  and  experiences  of  the  Divine  in 
past  centuries  are  ours  in  the  records  that  remain. 
The  same  God  who  gave  these  blessings  is  our 
God  and  with  us  as  surely  as  he  was  with  those 
whose  testimonies  abide.  The  Divine  Spirit 
working  upon  the  kingdom  of  nature  produced 
no  dull  and  dead  uniformity.  Why  should  it  be 
thought  a  thing  incredible  that  God  should  give 
birth  to  the  charm  of  variety  in  the  kingdom  of 
grace  ? 

That  God  by  a  miracle  might  have  saved  hu¬ 
manity  from  the  uncertainties  of  human  judg¬ 
ments  and  the  fallibility  of  human  efforts  no  one 
who  believes  in  the  power  of  God  can  doubt.  He 
might  have  given  to  his  Church  what  the  heathen 
said  he  gave  to  them,  “  a  book  fallen  perfect  from 
heaven.”  God  might  have  ordained  an  infallible 
record  and  an  infallible  recorder  and  an  infallible 
reader.  He  might  so  have  done.  We  believe  in 

[148] 


THE  PERSISTENT  PROBLEM  OF  THE  BIBLE, 


the  power  of  God.  We  also  believe  in  his  good¬ 
ness.  What  God  has  done  we  believe  is  best.  He 
has  chosen  to  secure  our  unity  through  the 
agency  of  the  Spirit  rather  than  that  of  the  letter. 

Through  the  harsh  noises  of  our  day, 

A  low,  sweet  prelude  finds  its  way ; 

Through  clouds  of  doubt,  and  creeds  of  fear, 

A  light  is  breaking,  calm  and  clear. 

What  song  of  Love,  now  low  and  far, 

Ere  long  shall  swell  from  star  to  star ! 

That  light,  the  breaking  day,  which  tips 
The  golden-spired  Apocalypse! 

— Whittier. 


1 149] 


XV 


THE  SPIRITUAL  FACT 

We  have  now  traced  briefly  the  birth  of  the 
Bible  as  a  physical  fact.  Down  through  the  cen¬ 
turies  we  have  followed  the  development  of  the 
great  Book  until  we  witnessed  its  birth  in  the 
form  in  which  it  is  clothed  in  the  present.  It  is 
a  history  of  marvelous  providences,  of  heroic 
endeavors  and  sacrifices. 

This  chapter  will  seek  to  reveal  the  birth  of 
the  Bible  as  a  spiritual  fact.  For  both  God  and 
man  are  inseparably  associated  in  the  production 
of  the  Book.  The  Bible  grew  as  the  man  grew, 
and  God  appeared  in  the  Book  as  he  was  able  to 
appear  in  the  man.  Down  in  the  human  heart 
the  Bible  was  born  as  a  spiritual  fact.  In  the 
experiences  of  the  man  we  have  the  witness  to 
the  man’s  finding  of  God  and  to  the  measure  of 
God’s  ability  to  enter  into  the  life  of  man. 

Revelation,  inspiration,  and  illumination  may 
be  conceived  as  isolated  facts  for  the  purposes  of 
instruction.  In  reality  they  do  not  exist  sepa¬ 
rately.  Man’s  life  is  a  unity.  Unite  revelation,  in¬ 
spiration,  and  illumination  in  experience,  and  you 

[  150] 


THE  SPIRITUAL  FACT 


have  the  integral  fact  of  which  the  Bible  bears 
witness.  The  Bible  as  a  spiritual  fact  is  a  testi¬ 
mony  to  the  fact  that  God  and  man  have  met  and 
that  God  has  been  born  in  the  experience  of  man. 

The  Bible,  therefore,  is  the  sum  total  of  the 
man’s  experiences  as  a  spiritual  being.  For  man 
is  not  an  isolated  fact  either  physically  or  spir¬ 
itually.  He  cannot  be  divorced  from  relations. 

Hunger  and  thirst  are  facts  of  man’s  being 
both  spiritual  and  physical.  In  the  great  world 
of  nature  and  spirit  there  are  realities  capable  of 
satisfying  these  appetences.  When  these  realities 
that  can  satisfy  man’s  hunger  and  thirst  meet  the 
spiritual  cravings  in  man  for  satisfaction  there 
is  born  an  experience.  That  experience  is  wit¬ 
ness  to  the  union  of  the  nature  of  man  with  the 
nature  of  God.  And  just  in  proportion  to  the 
capacity  of  the  man  to  receive  the  nature  of  God 
into  his  life  and  assimilate  that  nature  will  the 
man  reveal  the  life  and  character  of  God. 

The  Bible  as  a  spiritual  fact  is  a  revelation  of 
how  the  spirit  of  God  was  progressively  born  in 
the  soul  of  man.  Man  has  always  hungered  and 
thirsted  after  God,  but  it  was  long,  long  ages  be¬ 
fore  that  day  when  it  could  be  said  :  <rWe  beheld 
his  glory — full  of  grace  and  truth  ” ;  “  He  that 
hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the  Father,”  “  God  is 
love.” 


r  151  ] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


The  Bible  is  its  own  best  witness.  We  shall 
now  illustrate  the  birth  of  the  Bible  as  a  spiritual 
fact  by  a  few  graphic  pictures  taken  from  the  ex¬ 
periences  of  man  as  portrayed  in  the  Book  itself. 
Many  aspects  of  this  fact  might  be  chosen.  We 
confine  ourselves  to  one  and  that  briefly,  i.  e.,  the 
character  of  God.  We  choose  this  because  it  is 
the  supreme  theme  of  the  soul.  Man  can  rise  no 
higher  than  God  can  rise  in  him. 

The  book  of  Genesis  furnishes  the  starting- 
point.  Three  times  in  succession  there  is  set 
forth  the  character  of  God  after  the  following 
pattern : 


Genesis  6  :  7,  8:  And  the  Lord  said,  I  will  destroy  (blot 
out)  man  whom  I  have  created  from  the  face  of  the 
ground :  both  man  and  beast  and  creeping  thing  and  fowl 
of  the  air ;  for  it  repenteth  me  that  I  have  made  them : 
but  Noah  found  grace  in  the  eyes  of  the  Lord. 

Genesis  6  :  13 :  And  God  said  unto  Noah,  The  end  of 
all  flesh  is  come  before  me;  for  the  earth  is  filled  with 
violence  through  them;  and  behold,  I  will  destroy  them 
with  the  earth. 

Genesis  7:4:  For  yet  seven  days,  and  I  will  cause  it  to 
rain  upon  the  earth  forty  days  and  forty  nights ;  and  every 
living  thing  that  I  have  made  will  I  destroy  from  the  face 
of  the  ground. 

The  fulfilment  of  this  terrible  prophecy,  the 
execution  of  this  awful  vengeance  is  given  in  the 
record  which  follows: 


[  152] 


THE  SPIRITUAL  FACT 


Genesis  7:2 1 :  And  all  flesh  died  that  moved  upon  the 
earth,  both  fowl  and  cattle  and  beast  and  every  creeping 
thing  that  creepeth  upon  the  earth,  and  every  man ;  all  in 
whose  nostrils  was  the  breath  of  the  spirit  of  life,  of  all 
that  was  in  the  dry  land,  died.  And  every  thing  was  de¬ 
stroyed  which  was  upon  the  face  of  the  ground,  both  man 
and  cattle  and  creeping  thing  and  fowl  of  the  heaven ;  and 
they  were  destroyed  (blotted  out)  from  the  earth;  and 
Noah  only  was  left  and  they  that  were  with  him  in  the  ark. 

The  God  whom  man  is  able  to  experience  in 
this  Scripture  is  One  who  is  capable  of  wreaking 
vengeance  upon  his  entire  creation;  not  only  on 
man  but  also  on  beast  and  bird  and  creeping 
thing.  Mercy  is  extended  only  to  Noah  and  his 
family  and  that  which  he  had  with  him  in  the  ark. 

Turn  now  to  i  Samuel  15:3.  Samuel,  the 
prophet,  says  to  King  Saul : 

Now,  therefore,  go  and  smite  Amalek,  and  utterly  de¬ 
stroy  all  that  they  have,  and  spare  them  not ;  but  slay  both 
men  and  women,  infant  and  suckling,  ox  and  sheep,  camel 
and  ass. 

1  Samuel  15  :  7:  And  Saul  smote  the  Amalekites.  And 
he  took  Agag  the  king  of  the  Amalekites  alive  and  utterly 
destroyed  all  the  people  with  the  edge  of  the  sword.  But 
Saul  and  the  people  spared  Agag  and  the  best  of  the  sheep 
and  of  the  oxen,  and  of  the  fatlings  and  the  lambs  and  all 
that  was  good,  and  would  not  utterly  destroy  them ;  but 
everything  that  was  vile  and  refuse  he  utterly  destroyed. 

1  Samuel  15  :  11 :  And  Samuel  was  wroth  and  cried  unto 
the  Lord  all  night.  And  Samuel  rose  early  to  meet  Saul  in 
the  morning. 

1  Samuel  15  :  22:  And  Samuel  said  unto  Saul,  Hath  the 
Lord  as  great  delight  in  burnt  offerings  and  sacrifices  as  in 

1 153] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


obeying  the  voice  of  the  Lord?  Behold  to  obey  is  better 
than  sacrifice,  and  to  hearken  than  the  fat  of  rams.  For 
rebellion  is  as  the  sin  of  witchcraft,  and  stubbornness  is  as 
idolatry  and  teraphim.  Because  thou  hast  rejected  the  word 
of  the  Lord,  he  hath  also  rejected  thee  from  being  king. 

The  vengeance  of  God  is  still  conceived  as 
being  over  “  ox  and  sheep,  camel  and  ass  ”  as 
well  as  over  “  infant  and  suckling.”  The  ven¬ 
geance,  however,  is  limited  to  a  particular  tribe 
and  not  extended  to  “  every  living  thing  upon  the 
earth.” 

Samuel’s  challenge  to  Saul,  “To  obey  is  better 
than  sacrifice,”  is  truly  a  noble  ideal.  It  reminds 
us  of  the  submission  of  Jesus  in  the  Garden — 
“  Not  my  will,  but  thine,  be  done.”  Similar  as 
these  two  ideals  are  in  form  they  are  as  dissimilar 
in  content.  To  Samuel  “  to  obey  ”  involved  the 
killing  of  “  both  man  and  woman,  infant  and 
suckling,  ox  and  sheep,  camel  and  ass.”  To  Jesus 
“  Thy  will,  not  mine,  be  done  ”  meant  the  suffer¬ 
ing  of  one’s  self  even  unto  the  death  of  the  cross 
for  others. 

The  book  of  Deuteronomy  records  a  marked 
advance  in  the  idea  of  God.  A  society  had  been 
born  in  the  soul  of  man  for  the  prevention  of 
cruelty  to  animals.  The  immediate  cause  of  the 
prophet  Samuel’s  wrath  was  in  the  fact  that  Saul 
had  not  killed  all  of  the  cattle  as  well  as  the  men, 


[  154] 


THE  SPIRITUAL  FACT 


women,  and  children.  It  seems  remarkable  that 
man  came  to  feel  that  God’s  mercy  was  extended 
toward  a  brute  before  it  was  extended  to  a  man. 
The  character  of  God  in  Deuteronomy  is  witness 
to  this  fact : 

Deuteronomy  2  :  33 :  And  the  Lord  our  God  delivered 
him  up  before  us ;  and  we  smote  him  and  his  sons  and  all 
his  people.  And  we  took  all  his  cities  at  that  time  and 
utterly  destroyed  every  inhabited  city  with  the  women  and 
little  ones;  we  left  none  remaining;  only  the  cattle  we  took 
for  a  prey  unto  ourselves  with  the  spoil  of  the  city  which 
we  had  taken. 

Deuteronomy  3:6:  And  we  utterly  destroyed  them 
[i.  e.,  the  “  fenced  cities  ”  and  the  “  unwalled  towns  ”] 
utterly  destroying  every  inhabited  city  with  the  women  and 
the  little  ones.  But  all  the  cattle  and  the  spoil  of  the  cities, 
we  took  for  a  prey  unto  ourselves. 

We  next  turn  to  the  God  revealed  in  the  ex¬ 
perience  of  Elijah : 

1  Kings  18  :  40:  And  Elijah  said,  Take  the  prophets  of 
Baal  [450]  ;  let  not  one  of  them  escape.  And  they  took 
them;  and  Elijah  brought  them  down  to  the  brook  Kishon 
and  slew  them  there. 

2  Kings  1  :  10,  12 :  Let  fire  come  down  from  heaven 
and  consume  thee  and  thy  fifty.  And  the  fire  of  God  came 
down  from  heaven  and  consumed  him  and  his  fifty. 

Two  such  bands  of  fifty  each  shared  this  fate. 

The  passage  from  the  ideals  of  Elijah  to  those 
of  Amos,  Hosea,  Micah,  and  the  great  prophets 
is  most  striking.  We  come  into  a  new  spiritual 

[  155] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


atmosphere.  With  the  advent  of  these  moral 
idealists  a  new  vision  of  God  is  born  in  the  earth. 

Amos  8:4:  Hear  this,  O  ye  that  would  swallow  up  the 
needy,  and  cause  the  poor  of  the  land  to  fail,  saying,  When 
will  the  new  moon  be  gone,  that  we  may  sell  corn?  And 
the  Sabbath  that  we  may  set  forth  wheat?  making  the 
ephah  small  and  the  shekel  great,  and  dealing  falsely  with 
balances  of  deceit;  that  we  may  buy  the  poor  for  silver 
and  the  needy  for  a  pair  of  shoes,  and  sell  the  refuse  of 
the  wheat.  The  Lord  hath  sworn  by  the  excellency  of 
Jacob,  Surely,  I  will  never  forget  any  of  their  works. 

Hosea  11  :  7:  And  my  people  are  bent  to  backsliding 
from  me.  How  shall  I  give  thee  up,  O  Ephraim?  How 
shall  I  deliver  thee,  Israel?  .  .  Mine  heart  is  turned  within 
me.  My  compassions  are  kindled  together.  I  will  not 
execute  the  fierceness  of  mine  anger.  I  will  not  return  to 
destroy  Ephraim;  for  I  am  God  and  not  man;  the  Holy 
One  in  the  midst  of  thee ;  and  I  will  not  enter  into  the  city. 

The  character  of  God  expressed  in  the  experi¬ 
ence  of  Hosea  is  in  striking  contrast  to  that  of 
Samuel  and  especially  of  Genesis  6  :  7,  8.  Be¬ 
tween  “  I  will  destroy  ”  and  “  I  will  not  return 
to  destroy  ”  there  is  a  great  gulf  fixed. 

We  now  turn  to  Micah  6:6: 

Wherewith  shall  I  come  before  the  Lord,  and  bow  my¬ 
self  before  the  high  God?  Shall  I  come  before  him  with 
burnt  offerings,  with  calves  of  a  year  old?  Will  the  Lord 
be  pleased  with  thousands  of  rams  or  ten  thousands  of 
rivers  of  oil  ?  Shall  I  give  my  first-born  for  my  transgres¬ 
sions,  the  fruit  of  my  body  for  the  sin  of  my  soul?  He 
hath  shewed  thee,  O  man,  what  is  good :  and  what  doth  the 

[  156] 


THE  SPIRITUAL  FACT 


Lord  require  of  thee,  but  to  do  justly,  and  to  love  mercy, 
and  to  walk  humbly  with  thy  God? 

Listen  now  to  Jeremiah  31  :  27: 

Behold  the  days  come,  saith  the  Lord,  that  I  will  sow 
the  house  of  Israel  and  the  house  of  Judah  with  the  seed 
of  man  and  the  seed  of  beast.  And  it  shall  come  to  pass 
that  like  as  I  have  watched  over  them  to  pluck  up  and  to 
break  down,  and  to  overthrow  and  to  destroy,  and  to 
afflict ;  so  will  I  watch  over  them  to  build  and  to  plant,  saith 
the  Lord.  In  those  days  they  shall  say  no  more,  The 
fathers  have  eaten  sour  grapes  and  the  children’s  teeth  are 
set  on  edge.  But  every  one  shall  die  for  his  own  iniquity: 
every  man  that  eateth  the  sour  grapes,  his  teeth  shall  be 
set  on  edge. 

Behold  the  days  come,  saith  the  Lord,  that  I  will  make 
a  new  covenant  with  the  house  of  Israel  and  with  the 
house  of  Judah.  .  .  I  will  put  my  law  in  their  inward 
parts,  and  in  their  heart  will  I  write  it;  and  I  will  be  their 
God,  and  they  shall  be  my  people;  and  they  shall  teach  no 
more  every  man  his  neighbor,  and  every  man  his  brother, 
saying,  Know  the  Lord :  for  they  shall  all  know  me,  from 
the  least  of  them  unto  the  greatest  of  them,  saith  the  Lord : 
for  I  will  forgive  their  iniquity,  and  their  sin  will  I  remem¬ 
ber  no  more. 

Jeremiah  sees  God  reversing  himself.  The  old 
methods  are  no  longer  tolerable.  It  has  become 
impossible  for  the  prophet  to  think  of  God  as 
standing  over  humanity  “  to  pluck  up  and  to 
break  down ;  to  overthrow  and  to  destroy  and  to 
afflict.”  God  is  positive  and  constructive  in  char¬ 
acter.  He  “  watches  over  to  build  up  and  to 

r  157] 


M 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


plant.”  Man  brings  curses  on  life  not  God. 
Every  one  bears  the  penalty  of  his  own  sin.  Law 
external  is  superseded  by  law  internal.  God’s 
great  laws  are  written  in  the  heart,  not  on  tables 
of  stone. 

In  Isaiah  53  we  have  the  picture  of  the  suffer¬ 
ing  servant  of  Jehovah : 

Isaiah  53  :  6:  All  we  like  sheep  have  gone  astray;  we 
have  turned  everyone  to  his  own  way :  and  the  Lord  hath 
laid  on  him  the  iniquity  for  us  all. 

Isaiah  53  :  11:  Yet  he  shall  see  the  travail  of  his  soul; 
and  shall  be  satisfied. 

How  wondrously  beautiful,  tender,  full  of  com¬ 
passion  and  mercy  is  this  God  man  has  now  come 
to  experience !  The  spirit  of  vengeance  is  yielding 
to  the  spirit  of  mercy.  The  relation  between  the 
soul  and  God  is  becoming  more  intimate  and  per¬ 
sonal.  The  great  problem  of  human  sorrow  and 
suffering  is  being  carried  up  into  the  character  of 
God.  God  suffers  with  and  for  man. 

The  fulness  of  time  has  now  come.  “  The 
light  of  the  knowledge  of  the  glory  of  God  hath 
shined  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ.”  “  Hear  ye 
him.” 

Luke  9  :  54:  And  when  the  disciples  James  and  John 
saw  this  [that  the  Samaritans  did  not  receive  Jesus},  they 
said,  Lord,  wilt  thou  that  we  bid  fire  to  come  down  from 
heaven,  and  consume  them?  But  he  turned  and  rebuked 
them. 


[158] 


THE  SPIRITUAL  FACT 


Here  the  Revised  Versions  end.  Many  an¬ 
cient  authorities  add,  “  Even  as  Elijah  did.” 
Some  ancient  authorities  add,  “And  said,  Ye 
know  not  what  manner  of  spirit  ye  are  of.” 
Some,  but  fewer,  add  also,  “  For  the  Son  of  man 
came  not  to  destroy  men’s  lives  but  to  save  them.” 

Matthew  5  :  43-45:  Ye  have  heard  that  it  was  said,  Thou 
shalt  love  thy  neighbor  and  hate  thine  enemy:  but  I  say 
unto  you :  Love  your  enemies,  and  pray  for  them  that 
persecute  you;  that  ye  may  be  the  sons  of  your  Father 
which  is  in  heaven;  for  he  maketh  his  sun  to  rise  on  the 
evil  and  the  good;  and  sendeth  rain  on  the  just  and  the 
unjust. 

In  human  experience  there  was  born  for  the 
first  time  the  realization  of  the  perfect  character 
of  God.  The  incarnation  of  God  in  Christ  is  pri¬ 
marily  a  fact  of  experience.  In  that  experience 
God  and  man  were  perfectly  united,  and  the  Bible 
was  born  as  a  witness  to  the  spiritual  fact. 
Herein  are  words  of  which  it  may  be  truly  said, 
“  They  are  spirit,  and  they  are  life.” 

The  great  drama  of  the  ages  had  ended  in  the 
experience  of  a  life  in  which  God  and  man  were 
in  perfect  unity  and  accord.  Conscious  within 
himself  of  this  fact,  Jesus  declared  to  Philip,  “  He 
that  hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the  Father  ”  (John 
14  :  9). 

That  the  Father  might  find  a  perfect  expression 

[  159] 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


in  the  lives  of  all  was  the  very  breath  of  the  life- 
purpose  of  Jesus  Christ.  And  the  all-inspiring 
passion  in  the  Christian  program  was  summed  up 
in  two  words,  “  Like  Him !  ” 

To  Jesus  life  in  harmonious  accord  with  God 
was  something  vitally  practical.  When  he 
preached  to  men,  “  Be  ye,  therefore,  perfect  even 
as  your  Father  in  heaven  is  perfect”  (Matt.  5  : 
48),  he  made  it  clear  that  the  Preacher  had  lived 
the  sermon  before  he  preached  it :  “I  do  always 
the  things  that  please  him  ”  (John  8  :  29). 

When  men  sought  to  know  how  to  pray,  Jesus 
taught  them  that  progress  in  the  kingdom  of 
spirit  was  normal  and  natural.  “  When  ye  pray, 
say  .  .  .  Father,  thy  kingdom  come,  thy  will  be 
done  in  earth  as  it  is  in  heaven  ”  (Luke  11  :  2). 

To  Jesus  the  great  purpose  of  life  whether 
physical  or  spiritual  was  to  reproduce  itself,  God 
in  Christ  and  Christ  in  man,  “  I  in  them,  and  thou 
in  me  ”  (John  17  :  23). 

In  the  great  commission  of  Genesis  (Gen.  1  : 
28),  God  is  represented  as  laying  upon  man  the 
obligation  to  “  Be  fruitful  and  multiply  and  re¬ 
plenish  the  earth  and  subdue  it.”  But  in  the 
Gospels  Jesus  is  pictured  as  calling  upon  man  to 
“  Go  into  all  the  earth  and  preach  my  gospel  to 
every  creature.” 

And  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  was  the  Gospel  of  a 

[160] 


THE  SPIRITUAL  FACT 


life  lived,  of  the  proclamation  of  a  Divine  experi¬ 
ence,  of  the  revelation  of  the  Father.  To  Jesus 
a  vital  experience  of  God  must  inevitably  issue  in 
a  vital  impulsion  to  reveal.  “Go  ye ”  and  “  I 
must  ”  to  Jesus  were  but  two  aspects  of  one  and 
the  same  Divine  experience.  “  I  know  ”  was  but 
the  basal  fact  out  of  which  was  to  rise  the  glad 
refrain  “  I  love  to  tell.”  When  men  heard  Jesus 
say,  “  All  things  which  I  have  heard  of  my  Father 
I  have  made  known  unto  you  ”  (John  15  :  15), 
they  came  to  feel  and  to  experience  that  God  was 
a  “  Great  Companion  ”  and  an  ever-present 
“  Friend.” 

Luke  10  :  29-37  gives  Jesus’  picture  of  a  true 
neighbor  in  the  parable  of  the  Good  Samaritan. 
Its  climax  is  in  the  ideal,  “  He  that  shewed 
mercy,”  and  its  universal  appeal  to  the  human  is 
found  in  the  “  Go,  and  do  thou  likewise.” 

Mark  10  :  45:  But  whosoever  would  become  great 
among  you  shall  be  your  minister,  and  whosoever  would 
be  first  among  you  shall  be  servant  of  all.  For  verily  the 
Son  of  man  came  not  to  be  ministered  unto  but  to  minister, 
and  to  give  his  life  a  ransom  for  many. 

John  10  :  10,  11:  I  came  that  they  may  have  life,  and 
may  have  it  abundantly.  I  am  the  good  shepherd;  the 
good  shepherd  layeth  down  his  life  for  the  sheep. 


Luke  15  :  11-32  relates  the  story  of  The  Lost 
Son  and  his  recovery.  The  father 


THE  BIRTH  OF  THE  BIBLE 


saw  him  while  he  was  yet  afar  off,  and  was  moved  with 
compassion,  and  ran,  and  fell  on  his  neck,  and  kissed  him. . . 
And  said  to  his  servants,  Bring  forth  quickly  the  best  robe 
and  put  it  on  him;  and  put  a  ring  on  his  hand,  and  shoes 
on  his  feet;  and  bring  the  fatted  calf,  and  kill  it,  and  let 
us  eat  and  make  merry;  for  this  my  son  was  dead,  and  is 
alive  again ;  he  was  lost,  and  is  found.  And  they  began  to 
be  merry. 

John  3  :  16:  For  God  so  loved  the  world,  that  he  gave 
his  only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  on  him 
should  not  perish,  but  have  eternal  life. 

The  perfect  revelation  of  the  love  of  God  in 
Jesus  Christ  has  cast  out  all  fear  from  the  human 
heart.  To  carry  this  message  to  men  is  to  carry 
the  message  of  joy  and  peace,  of  mercy  and  hope. 
Well  has  this  message  been  called  the  Gospel.  It 
is  indeed  Good  News  to  men. 

Good  News  to  men !  This  is  only  one  half  of 
the  story.  It  is  Good  News  to  God  also.  For 
God  has  had  a  share  in  the  birth  of  this  Divine 
experience.  The  “  glorious  liberty  ”  comes  to 
God  and  man  simultaneously.  God  enters  into 
the  life  of  man  when  the  life  of  man  is  capaci¬ 
tated  to  respond  in  sympathetic  accord  to  God. 
“  All  hail  the  power  of  Jesus’  name !  ”  is  the  com¬ 
panion  picture  experience  to  “  There  is  joy  in 
the  presence  of  the  angels  of  God.” 

In  his  little  poem,  “  The  Boy  and  the  Angel,” 
Robert  Browning  has  portrayed  most  beautifully 
this  double  ideal  for  both  God  and  man  blended 


[162] 


THE  SPIRITUAL  FACT 


into  the  unity  of  a  perfect  experience.  It  shall 
form  a  fitting  conclusion  to  our  theme,  the  Birth 
of  the  Bible,  as  a  spiritual  fact : 

Morning,  evening,  noon  and  night, 

“  Praise  God !  ”  sang  Theocrite. 

*  *  * 

And  God  said :  “  A  praise  is  in  mine  ear, 

There  is  no  doubt  in  it,  no  fear !  ” 


[  163] 


INDEX 


INDEX 


Alexander  the  Great,  23,  58. 

Alexander  II,  9off. 

Alfred  the  Great,  52. 

Ambrose,  141. 

American  Standard  Revision, 
82,  io3ff.,  105,  1 3of. 

Anathema,  21,  40,  42. 

Antiochus  Epiphanes,  111. 

Apocrypha:  controverted,  i8f. ; 
and  Septuagint,  3of. ;  and  New 
Testament  writers,  31;  and  the 
versions,  31;  and  the  Church 
Fathers,  31;  in  the  East,  32; 
declared  canonical,  by  Council 
of  Jerusalem,  32;  in  the  West, 
32;  subordinated  by  Luther, 
33L ;  and  post  -  Renaissance 
Bibles,  34;  not  published  by 
British  and  Foreign  Bible  So¬ 
ciety,  34;  unknown  by  the 
multitude,  35;  called  Hagiog- 
rapha  in  Great  Bible,  69;  in 
special  section  of  Bishops’ 
Bible,  72;  in  part  in  the  Douay 
Bible,  74;  omitted  in  the 
Peshito,  100;  declared  Scrip¬ 
ture  by  Council  of  Trent,  136L ; 
subordinated  by  Jews,  137; 
used  as  Scripture  by  Fathers, 
139;  in  the  versions,  140L 

Apostolicity,  124,  137. 

Aquila,  27. 

Aramaic:  language  of  Jesus,  26; 
fragments  of,  in  the  Bible,  26. 

Armenian  version,  101,  132. 

Athanasius,  33,  140. 

Augustine,  138,  142. 

Authority  of  the  Book,  120. 

Authorized  Bible,  71. 


Babylonian  captivity,  53. 

Bancroft,  78. 

Baptism  and  command  of  Jesus, 
119. 

Barcochba,  111. 

Bede,  52. 

Bellarmine  and  revision  of  the 
Vulgate,  41  f. 

Bessarion,  Cardinal,  92. 

Bible:  born  through  experiences 
of  men,  4;  a  record  of  divine 
experience,  4;  the  word  of 
God,  6f. ;  meaning  of  term, 
8;  history  of,  main  points  in, 
iof.;  pitfalls  in  use  of,  2if.; 
true  text  of,  i34ff. ;  one,  and 
one  only,  148;  as  a  spiritual 
fact,  1 5 off.;  its  own  best  wit¬ 
ness,  152. 

Bibles,  varying,  131. 

Biblical  Commission  of  Leo 
XIII,  46f. 

Bibliolatry,  3,  147. 

Bishops’  Bible,  71,  77,  79,  105. 

“  Boy  and  the  Angel,  The,” 
162L 

Breeches  Bible,  71. 

British  and  Foreign  Bible  So¬ 
ciety  and  the  Apocrypha,  34. 

Broadus,  J.  A.,  119. 

Browning,  R.,  162. 

Caedmon,  51. 

Cajetan,  142. 

Calvin,  146. 

Canon:  of  New  Testament,  fixed, 
9,  closed,  17;  of  Old  Testa¬ 
ment,  closed,  14;  meaning  of, 
14;  how  formed,  1 7fF. ;  and 


[167] 


INDEX 


the  Church  Fathers,  20;  and 
the  Reformers,  20;  the  ques¬ 
tion  of  the,  1 38fF. 

Caraffa  Commission,  48. 

Catholic  Encyclopedia  criticizes 
Jerome,  45. 

Catholics  and  canon  of  Septu- 
agint,  33. 

Challoner,  Richard,  74. 

Chart:  full,  frontispiece,  de¬ 

scribed,  13ft.;  sectional,  25,  37, 
95. 

Christ,  lives  of,  128. 

Chrysostom,  141. 

Church  Fathers,  the,  and  the 
Apocrypha,  31. 

Clement  VIII,  42  f.,  48,  117. 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  139. 

Clement  of  Rome,  138. 

Cocceius,  145. 

Cochleus,  61. 

Codex:  Alexandrinus,  94,  132; 
Bezse,  94,  96ff.;  Claromonta- 
nus,  140;  Ephraem,  94,  96,  98; 
Ezrae,  112;  Sinaiticus,  H4f-» 
1 1 8,  132;  Vaticanus,  ii4f-» 

118. 

Complutensian  Polyglot,  40,  59, 
68,  79,  142. 

Consensus  Helveticus,  145. 

Constantine  the  Great,  91,  140. 

Convocation:  at  Oxford,  56;  of 
Canterbury,  102. 

Coptic  versions,  100,  132. 

Copyists,  ii7f. 

Council:  of  Carthage,  141E ;  of 
Jerusalem,  32,  143;  of  Laodi- 
cea,  141;  of  Trent,  33,  40, 
43E,  69,  97,  124,  136,  142C 

Councils  and  the  canon,  17. 

Covenant  and  Testament,  9. 

Coverdale,  Miles,  67f.,  70. 

Crampton  version,  76. 

Cranmer,  Archbishop,  68,  70. 

Criticism:  lower,  126;  higher,  128. 

Cursive  manuscripts,  98T 


Cyprian,  139. 

Cyril,  11 2. 

Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  140. 

Damasus,  Pope,  38,  48,  130. 
Daniel,  book  of,  disputed,  20. 
Davidson,  S.,  146. 

Deists,  126. 

Deuteronomy  and  idea  of  God, 
154. 

Diocletian,  112. 

Dionysius  of  Corinth,  138. 
Divinity  in  the  Bible,  4. 

Douay  version,  73!,  77. 

Edward,  the  Black  Prince,  112. 
Edward  III,  S3f . 

Edward  VI,  70,  78. 

Elizabeth,  Queen,  70. 

English  Revised  Version,  82, 
i02ff.,  105. 

Epistles,  when  written,  16. 
Erasmus,  s8f.,  67f.,  84,  127,  138, 
142. 

Ethiopic  versions,  101. 

Eusebius,  140. 

Experience  a  test  of  Scripture, 
128. 

Ezra:  gathered  sacred  books  of 
Jews,  13;  fanciful  story  con¬ 
cerning,  24;  activities  of, 
I09ff.,  116,  1 2of.,  130,  137. 

Faber,  80. 

Fisher,  Bishop  of  Rochester,  62. 
Froude  on  Tyndale,  64. 

Gasquet,  Abbot,  45. 

Geneva  Bible,  7off.,  77E,  80, 
105. 

Gemara,  the,  121. 

Genuineness,  128. 

Gibbons,  Cardinal,  74, 

God:  conceptions  of,  i52ff.;  real¬ 
ized  in  Christ,  159. 

Good  Samaritan,  the,  161. 


[  168] 


INDEX 


Gospel,  the  real,  i6of. 

Gospels,  the:  when  written,  16; 

order  of,  97L 
Gothic  versions,  101. 

Great  Bible,  68f.,  70ft.,  77*  105. 
“  Great  He  ”  Bible,  81. 

“Great  She”  Bible,  81. 

Greek  civilization  and  translation 
of  Old  Testament,  23. 

Gregory,  C.  R.,  145. 

Gregory  XIV  and  version  of  the 
Vulgate,  41. 

Gregory  the  Great,  112,  125. 
Hagadah,  122. 

Hagiographa,  14,  20,  69,  no, 
137. 

Halachah,  122. 

Harnack,  16. 

Hebrew  Old  Testament:  and  Sep- 
tuagint,  27ff.;  rejected  Apoc¬ 
rypha,  30. 

Henry  V,  54. 

Henry  VIII,  62,  68,  70,  78. 
Hentenius,  John,  41. 

Herford,  Nicholas,  55. 

Hexapla:  work  of  Origen,  27L ; 

used  by  Jerome,  38. 

Hilary,  141. 

Holy  Writings,  14. 

Huss,  John,  56!.,  64. 

Hypatia,  112. 

Hystaspes,  138. 

Idolatry,  3,  147. 

Index  Expurgatorius,  113. 
Infallibility,  124ft.,  148. 

Innocent  I,  141. 

Inspiration:  views  of,  among 
the  Jews,  3 if.;  as  an  isolated 
fact,  150. 

Irenaeus,  115,  139. 

James  I,  77ft. 

Jamnia,  Council  of,  14. 

Jerome:  included  Apocrypha  in 


revision  of  Vetus  Itala,  32L ; 
made  the  Vulgate,  36ft.;  used 
original  texts,  38;  attacked  for 
his  work,  39L,  44ft.,  48;  and 
text  of  Old  Testament,  46,  55; 
and  true  text  of  Bible,  117, 
120;  and  the  early  church, 
127;  inspired  by  Damasus, 
130;  commentaries  of,  140; 
and  tradition,  138;  results  of 
use  of  work  of,  142. 

Jesus:  preservation  of  teaching 
of,  15;  realization  of  perfect 
character  of  God,  159ft. 

John  of  Damascus,  141. 

John  the  apostle,  115. 

John  XXII,  Pope,  113. 

Justinian,  92. 

Justin  Martyr,  115,  138. 

Keating,  Joseph,  75. 

King  James  Version:  initiated, 
71,  78T ;  published,  79;  criti¬ 
cized,  80;  limitations  of,  81  ft., 
104;  one  of  many  versions, 
i3°f- 

Koran,  114. 

Lainez,  124. 

Lattey,  Cuthbert,  75. 

Law,  the,  14,  nof.,  137. 

Leo  XIII,  Pope,  and  Biblical 
Commission,  46. 

Lingard,  John,  74. 

Literalism,  50,  126. 

Lloyd,  Bishop,  80. 

Logia,  of  Matthew,  16. 

Lollards,  54. 

Lost  books  of  the  Bible,  i8ff. 

Lost  Son,  the,  161. 

Louvain  Bible,  41. 

Luke,  prologue  of,  16. 

Luther:  on  the  Apocrypha,  33L; 
and  Bible  translation,  58L, 
63;  facts  in  life  of,  6of. ;  and 
the  canon,  138,  144. 


[169] 


INDEX 


Manuscripts:  the  oldest,  31;  new 
wealth  of,  84;  important,  85ft.; 
age  of,  108,  1 14;  differences 
in,  118. 

Mary,  Queen,  70. 

Massoretes,  the  122T 

Matthew’s  Bible,  67,  69,  105. 

Mercy  and  idea  of  God,  I53ff. 

Mishna,  the,  121. 

More,  Sir  Thomas,  105. 

Murray,  J.  O.  F.,  134C 

Muratorian  Canon,  139. 

Nazianzen,  Gregory,  140. 

Nebuchadnezzar,  109;  in. 

Newman,  Cardinal,  63. 

Nicephorus,  142. 

Nicholas  V,  92. 

Nikke,  Bishop,  63. 

Obedience,  Old  Testament  and 
New  Testament  conceptions 
of,  154. 

(Ecolampadius,  145. 

Old  Egyptian  version,  132. 

Old  Testament,  Hebrew:  and 
Septuagint,  27ff. ;  order  of 
books  in,  29ff. ;  rejected  Apoc¬ 
rypha,  30. 

Old  Testament  manuscripts,  114. 

Origen:  Hexapla  of,  27T ;  work 
of,  38,  1 16,  130;  and  Ximenes, 
40;  and  text  of  Old  Testa¬ 
ment,  46;  corrected  text  of 
Scripture,  48;  and  the  early 
church,  127;  and  the  Apocry¬ 
pha,  139. 

Paganism  and  rock  of  fact,  2. 

Palimpsest,  96. 

Papias,  16,  115. 

Parker,  Archbishop,  72. 

Paul  IV,  Pope,  1 1 3. 

Pentateuch,  Samaritan,  in. 

Peshito,  20,  31,  36,  99C,  115, 
132- 


Pharaoh,  in. 

Pietism,  146. 

Pius  IX,  124. 

Pius  X,  Pope,  and  text  of  the 
Vulgate,  45. 

Polycarp,  115. 

Polyglot,  Walton’s,  94. 

Printing  and  publication  of  the 
Bible,  s8f. 

Prophets,  the:  assembling  of 
books  of,  14;  and  history  of 
Israel,  io9ff. ;  made  part  of 
Old  Testament,  137;  and  spir¬ 
itual  idea  of  God,  155. 

Protestants:  and  divine  authority 
of  the  Bible,  6;  have  no  offi¬ 
cially  elosed  canon,  17. 

Ptolemy  Philadelphus  and  Sep¬ 
tuagint,  24. 

Purvey,  John,  55. 

Quotations  in  New  Testament 
from  Old,  24C 

Rationalism,  146. 

Reformation,  the,  125. 

Reformers:  and  the  canon,  20, 
144;  later,  136. 

Renaissance,  the,  58,  125. 

Reuss,  146. 

Revelation,  isoff. 

Revelation,  the:  disputed,  20; 
falsely  used,  21. 

Revised  versions:  and  true  text 
of  Scripture,  u8ff. ;  variations 
in  text  of,  127T 

Revision  according  to  judgment 
of  the  times,  1 34ff. 

Reynolds,  Doctor,  78. 

Rheims-Douay  version,  74,  79, 
87,  106,  131. 

Rogers,  John,  70. 

Roman  Catholic  Church:  and  a 
perfect  Bible,  4ofif. ;  48ff.;  pro¬ 
duced  English  Scriptures,  73 ; 
and  translations  into  English 


[  170] 


INDEX 


from  originals,  74ft.;  and  text 
of  the  Vulgate,  1x7;  and  the 
canon,  i42ff. 

Roman  Catholics  and  divine  au¬ 
thority  of  the  Bible,  6. 

Rufinus,  33. 

Russian  catechism,  143. 

Sacred  books  destroyed,  112. 

Sanhedrin,  the  Great,  121. 

Sayings  of  Jesus,  20. 

Scholarship  in  production  of 
versions,  io6f. 

Scriptures,  the  new  study  of, 
126. 

Scrivener,  127. 

Septuagint:  story  of,  23T ;  of¬ 
fensive  to  strict  Jews,  24;  the 
Bible  of  New  Testament  writ¬ 
ers,  24,  31;  freely  used  by 
Christians,  26;  differences  of, 
from  Hebrew  Old  Testament, 
27ff. ;  and  Apocrypha,  30; 
Sinaitic  manuscript  of,  89ff. ; 
Codex  Alexandrinus  of,  94; 
witness  to  divisions  among  the 
Jews,  hi,  120;  abandoned  by 
Jerome,  114;  used  by  Origen, 
1 16;  in  Greek  Catholic 
Church,  13 1 ;  differs  from  He¬ 
brew  Old  Testament,  132. 

Sibylline  Books,  138. 

Sigismund,  64. 

Sin,  penalty  of,  158. 

Sinaitic  Manuscript,  19,  8sff., 
89#-.  97- 

Sixtus  of  Sienna,  143E 

Sixtus  Senensis,  33. 

Sixtus  V,  Pope,  41-44.  48,  1 17. 

Spencer,  F.  A.,  74. 

St,  Catherine,  Monastery  of,  89ff. 

Subjectivism,  146. 

Submission,  154. 

Symmachus,  27. 

Synod  of  Sens,  142. 

Synoptic  Gospels,  135. 


Talmud,  the,  113. 

Talmudists,  i2iff, 

Targums,  122. 

Taverner’s  Bible,  68. 

Tertullian,  9,  139. 

Testament  and  Covenant,  9. 

Textualists,  123,  126. 

Textus  Receptus,  59. 

Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  140. 

Theodotion,  27. 

Theophilus  of  Antioch,  i38f. 

Tischendorf,  8gff.,  93T,  96,  127. 

Titus,  hi. 

Toletus  Commission,  48. 

Tradition:  oral,  120,  136;  writ¬ 
ten,  120,  136. 

Traditionalists,  123,  126. 

Tran  substantiation,  54. 

Treacle  Bible,  71. 

Tregelles,  93,  127. 

Truth,  Spirit  of,  law  of,  147. 

Tunstal,  Bishop,  62,  69,  105. 

Tyndale,  William:  used  originals 
in  his  translations,  51,  57; 

conditions  of  times  of,  57ff. ; 
refused  permission  to  translate 
New  Testament,  6of. ;  worked 
abroad,  61 ;  translation  of, 
burned,  62;  revised  his  trans¬ 
lations,  63 ;  fixed  standard  of 
English,  63;  betrayed,  64T ; 
condemned  and  martyred,  65L ; 
influence  of,  on  Authorized 
Version,  79;  criticized,  105; 
Bibles  of,  burned,  113. 

Ulfilas,  133. 

Uncials,  94. 

Urban  II,  112. 

Usher,  Archbishop,  80. 

Vallarsi  and  corrected  edition  of 
the  Vulgate,  44. 

Valverde  and  correction  of  the 
Vulgate,  45,  49. 

Vatican  Council,  143. 


[  171  ] 


INDEX 


Vatican  Manuscript,  8sff.,  92ff. 

Vaughan,  64. 

Vengeance  and  idea  of  God, 
1  Sub¬ 
versions,  31,  99ff. 

Vetus  Itala:  translated  from 
Septuagint,  26,  32;  and  Greek- 
Hebrew  Scriptures,  36;  of  his¬ 
toric  significance,  100;  date  of, 
115;  relation  of,  to  Vulgate, 
US,  1 17;  use  of,  by  Gregory 
the  Great,  125. 

Vowel-points,  123,  136. 

Vulgate:  standard  of  authority 
in  Catholic  Church,  33;  grew 
out  of  Vetus  Itala,  38;  work 
of  Jerome,  38;  was  bitterly  op¬ 
posed,  39;  vicissitudes  of,  39; 
authoritative  for  Roman 
Church,  4off.;  revised  under 
Pope  Sixtus  V,  41 ;  Clemen¬ 
tine  edition  of,  42;  errors  in 
editions  of,  4iff. ;  and  Val- 
larsi,  44;  Valverde  and  the, 
45;  and  Pius  X,  45;  first 
printed,  59;  translated  into 
English,  73f. ;  influence  of,  on 
Authorized  Version,  79;  of  his¬ 
toric  significance,  100;  age  of, 
ii4f.;  and  true  text  of  Bible, 


1 17;  and  tradition,  125;  in 
Roman  Church,  13 1,  133;  and 
Jerome’s  commentaries,  140; 
confusion  because  of  use  of, 
142;  Clementine,  143. 

Westcott,  125. 

Westcott  and  Hort,  75,  127. 

Westminster  Bible,  131. 

Westminster  version,  75. 

Wittingham,  William,  70. 

Wolsey,  Cardinal,  6if. 

Wyclif:  translated  Vulgate,  52; 
conditions  of  times  of,  52C ; 
protested  against  corruptions, 
53;  and  transubstantiation,  54; 
death  of,  55;  denounced,  55; 
ashes  of,  violated,  56;  in¬ 
fluence  of  translations  by,  57; 
Bibles  of,  burned,  113. 

Ximenes,  Cardinal:  and  the 
Apocrypha,  33;  and  the  Com- 
plutensian  Polyglot,  40;  and 
burning  of  Arabic  manuscripts, 
1 13;  and  the  Reformation, 
127;  and  separation  of  Apoc¬ 
rypha,  142. 

Zwingli,  145. 


[  172] 


Date  Due 

SE  7  '4$ 

. 

I 

-J  3-MWI  "  J  ^ 

♦ 

